§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Prevue HR by 5 points.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Prevue HR 44 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Jack & Jill, with 1 level: Jack & Jill is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Prevue HR on Article 11 Technical Documentation. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Prevue HR 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 67% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill 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
Prevue HR
Prevue HR's psychometric platform tests candidates' aptitude, personality and motivations and compares the results with a custom role benchmark to produce a percentage Job Suitability score and Job-Fit report, alongside an optional applicant tracking system (APS Pro).
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Prevue HR under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Prevue HR is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Prevue HR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | CA |
| Founded | 2025 | 1994 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Prevue HR 44
3.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Prevue HR 40
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Prevue HR 54
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Prevue HR 45
0.2 weighted points to Prevue HR
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Prevue HR 58
0.2 weighted points to Prevue HR
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Prevue HR 27
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 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 +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Prevue HR.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Prevue HR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 44 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 48 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 44 (F) | +5 | +4.5 |
§ 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 | Prevue HR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 28 | 6 | Sources 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; Prevue HR has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Prevue HR sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Prevue HR, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Prevue HR last reviewed
- September 25, 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