§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Recruiterflow by 13 points.
Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, comes out 13 points above Recruiterflow, filed under ATS-integrated: 49 against 36 under rubric v1.0. Recruiterflow takes 1 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 4 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, Recruiterflow 18 — and at an 18% weight it carries 63% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Jack & Jill is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2017 |
§ 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 · Recruiterflow 18
7.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Recruiterflow 33
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Recruiterflow 33
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Recruiterflow 44
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Recruiterflow 30
0.3 weighted points to Recruiterflow
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 33 | +11 | +2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 18 | +44 | +7.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 36 (F) | +13 | +12.2 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Jack & Jill | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 25 | 6 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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