§ The result
Rippling leads Jack & Jill by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Rippling, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 56 and Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, on 49, 7 points apart. Jack & Jill takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 5 for Rippling, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 44, Rippling 73 — and at a 20% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Rippling holds across the 5 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Rippling 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 | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Rippling 73
5.8 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Rippling 42
3.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Rippling 45
2.5 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Rippling 64
2.4 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Rippling 64
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Rippling 60
0.2 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Rippling 47
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.3 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 -7.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 73 | -29 | -5.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 45 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 64 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 60 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 47 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 64 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 56 (F) | -7 | -7.9 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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