§ The result
3 points separate Phenom and Jack & Jill.
Within the Sourcing cohort, Phenom edges Jack & Jill by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 49. Phenom leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Jack & Jill leads 3, including Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Jack & Jill 48, Phenom 30) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Jack & Jill 62, Phenom 75), the second being 36% of the weighted advantage Phenom 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
Phenom
Talent experience platform combining a career site CMS, candidate CRM, internal mobility, and conversational AI for screening and scheduling.
§ The record
Jack & Jill and Phenom are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | Phenom |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Phenom 75
2.3 weighted points to Phenom
20% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Phenom 55
2.2 weighted points to Phenom
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Phenom 30
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Phenom 60
1.8 weighted points to Phenom
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Phenom 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Phenom 60
0.2 weighted points to Phenom
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Phenom 55
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Phenom.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Phenom | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 75 | -13 | -2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 52 (F) | -3 | -3.9 |
§ 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 | Phenom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 domain |
Jack & Jill has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Phenom 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 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 Phenom, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Phenom 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