§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Recruitly takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and Recruitly, filed under ATS-integrated, on 41, 8 points apart. Recruitly leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Jack & Jill, yet Jack & Jill takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, Recruitly 15 — and at an 18% weight it carries 91% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 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
Recruitly
Recruitly is an all-in-one ATS and CRM for recruitment agencies. It includes AI candidate matching, which ranks candidates against live jobs and shows its reasons, and AI application review, which scores and explains each applicant against the job spec. It also offers external profile sourcing, CV parsing, an AI phone system and an AI meeting assistant.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Recruitly under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Recruitly |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | AE |
| Founded | 2025 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Recruitly 15
8.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Recruitly 35
1.1 weighted points to Recruitly
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Recruitly 45
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Recruitly 45
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Recruitly 60
0.2 weighted points to Recruitly
20% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Recruitly 45
0.2 weighted points to Recruitly
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Recruitly 58
0.2 weighted points to Recruitly
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Recruitly.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Recruitly | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 45 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 15 | +47 | +8.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 41 (F) | +8 | +7.6 |
§ 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 | Recruitly | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 32 | 5 | 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; Recruitly has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 5 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 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 37 for Recruitly, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruitly 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