§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Paradox on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and Paradox, filed under Scheduling, on 41, 8 points apart. Jack & Jill takes all 7 criteria from Paradox without a 20-point raw gap on any of them; the closest is FRIA Support, Jack & Jill 28 to Paradox 25. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Jack & Jill 48, Paradox 35) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Jack & Jill 62, Paradox 50), the second being 30% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Jack & Jill
Jack & Jill is a London AI recruiting marketplace. Its free career agent, Jack, interviews and profiles candidates, and its employer-side AI recruiter, Jill, turns a role brief into a scoring rubric, ranks candidates from Jack's network (and optionally public profiles) with a percentage match, and arranges introductions only when both sides agree.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Paradox 50
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Paradox 35
1.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Paradox 50
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Paradox 45
0.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Paradox 40
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Paradox 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Paradox 45
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 45 | +11 | +0.9 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 41 (F) | +8 | +7.3 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Jack & Jill | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Jack & Jill has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next