§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Pulsifi on all 7 criteria.
Jack & Jill finishes 16 points clear of Pulsifi under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 33 — across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Jack & Jill takes all 7 criteria and Pulsifi none of them; the nearest contest is FRIA Support, Jack & Jill 28 to Pulsifi 25. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Pulsifi 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 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
Pulsifi
Pulsifi gives candidates and employees 0-100 Role Fit and Organizational Fit scores that combine personality, work-interest, work-culture and cognitive assessments with AI resume and skills analysis, and uses the scores to rank people for hiring, internal mobility and succession.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Pulsifi 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 Pulsifi is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Pulsifi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | SG |
| Founded | 2025 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Pulsifi 20
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Pulsifi 30
2.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Pulsifi 28
2.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Pulsifi 40
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Pulsifi 46
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Pulsifi 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Pulsifi 55
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +16 beside that +15.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Pulsifi.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Pulsifi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 28 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 46 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 33 (F) | +16 | +15.6 |
§ 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 | Pulsifi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 3 | 2 | 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 | 26 | 7 | Sources 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; Pulsifi has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 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 69 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for Pulsifi, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pulsifi 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