HomeCompareJack & Jill vs Pymetrics (Harver Games)

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Jack & Jill vs Pymetrics (Harver Games)

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Pymetrics (Harver Games) takes the total, Jack & Jill takes more of the criteria.

Pymetrics (Harver Games) scores 56 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Jack & Jill leads more of the criteria than Pymetrics (Harver Games) — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Pymetrics (Harver Games) leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Pymetrics (Harver Games). One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 44, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 51% of the weighted advantage Pymetrics (Harver Games) holds across the 3 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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 Pymetrics (Harver Games) is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordJack & JillPymetrics (Harver Games)
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersGBUS
Founded20252013

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 39% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Jack & Jill 44 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 70

    5.2 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)

  2. 18% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Jack & Jill 62 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 80

    3.2 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)

  3. 15% weight · 77% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Jack & Jill 48 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 60

    1.8 weighted points to Pymetrics (Harver Games)

  4. 12% weight · 89% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Jack & Jill 48 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 35

    1.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill

  5. 12% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Jack & Jill 58 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 50

    1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill

  6. 15% weight · 99% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Jack & Jill 28 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 25

    0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill

  7. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Jack & Jill 56 · Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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 -7.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -7 beside that -7.2.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Jack & Jill minus Pymetrics (Harver Games).

CategoryWeightJack & JillPymetrics (Harver Games)Δ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4470-26-5.2
Bias Audit Transparency18%6280-18-3.2
FRIA Support15%2825+3+0.4
Data Governance Disclosure15%4860-12-1.8
Human Oversight Design12%5850+8+1.0
Post-Market Monitoring12%4835+13+1.6
Customer Documentation8%5655+1+0.1
Total100%49 (F)56 (F)-7-7.2

§ 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.

CriterionWeightJack & JillPymetrics (Harver Games)
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain20Sources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%60Audit reportSources on a separate domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%11Audit reportSources on a separate domain01—
Data Governance Disclosure15%71Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain10Sources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%80Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11—
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
All criteria100%315Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain92Audit reportSources 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; Pymetrics (Harver Games) has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Pymetrics (Harver Games) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Pymetrics (Harver Games), across 3 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Jack & Jill last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Pymetrics (Harver Games) 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.