§ The result
Plum leads Jack & Jill by 5 points.
Plum scores 54 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Plum, with 1 level: Plum is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Jack & Jill on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Plum 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 47% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Plum under Assessment 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. Only Plum is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | CA |
| Founded | 2025 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Plum 83
3.8 weighted points to Plum
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Plum 58
2.8 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Plum 36
1.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Plum 54
0.9 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Plum 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Plum 63
0.6 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -5.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 83 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 36 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 63 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 54 (F) | -5 | -5.9 |
§ 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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 3 | 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 | 15 | 4 | 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum last reviewed
- June 7, 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