§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, The Predictive Index takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges The Predictive Index (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. The Predictive Index leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Jack & Jill leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Jack & Jill. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, The Predictive Index 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 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
The Predictive Index
The Predictive Index provides validated behavioral and cognitive psychometric assessments used to screen, hire, and develop employees and design teams, alongside AI-assisted talent-management software.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, The Predictive Index 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 The Predictive Index is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | The Predictive Index |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 1955 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · The Predictive Index 45
3.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · The Predictive Index 50
1.2 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · The Predictive Index 35
1.1 weighted points to The Predictive Index
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · The Predictive Index 55
1.1 weighted points to The Predictive Index
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · The Predictive Index 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · The Predictive Index 43
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · The Predictive Index 60
0.3 weighted points to The Predictive Index
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.0 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 +0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus The Predictive Index.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | The Predictive Index | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 43 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 48 (F) | +1 | +0.8 |
§ 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 | The Predictive Index | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 4 | 0 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 18 | 6 | 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; The Predictive Index has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 6 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 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 24 for The Predictive Index, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- The Predictive Index 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