§ The result
1 point separates Paycom and Jack & Jill.
Paycom holds a 1-point edge over Jack & Jill under rubric v1.0, 50 to 49, across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. Paycom leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Jack & Jill leads 3, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 44, Paycom 68 — and at a 20% weight it carries 64% of the weighted advantage Paycom holds across the 4 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
Paycom
Paycom is a single-database human capital management and payroll platform whose applicant tracking system automates recruiting with resume parsing, keyword/knockout candidate filtering, automated correspondence, generative job-description writing, and a command-driven AI data-query engine (IWant).
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Paycom under ATS-integrated 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 | Paycom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 1998 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Paycom 68
4.8 weighted points to Paycom
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Paycom 38
4.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Paycom 62
2.1 weighted points to Paycom
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Paycom 38
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Paycom 55
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Paycom 60
0.3 weighted points to Paycom
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Paycom 30
0.3 weighted points to Paycom
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Paycom.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Paycom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 68 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 50 (F) | -1 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | Paycom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Jack & Jill has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paycom has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Paycom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paycom last reviewed
- July 17, 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