§ The result
Sapia.ai leads Jack & Jill by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Sapia.ai, filed under Assessment, finishes on 56 and Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, on 49, 7 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Sapia.ai: Sapia.ai is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Jack & Jill on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 44, Sapia.ai 70 — and at a 20% weight it carries 54% of the weighted advantage Sapia.ai holds across the 6 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | AU |
| Founded | 2025 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Sapia.ai 70
5.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Sapia.ai 62
2.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
18% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Sapia.ai 52
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Sapia.ai 35
1.1 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Sapia.ai 62
0.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Sapia.ai 62
0.5 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Sapia.ai 50
0.2 weighted points to Sapia.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.4 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 -7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 70 | -26 | -5.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 56 (F) | -7 | -7.8 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 16 | 4 | Audit 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Sapia.ai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai last reviewed
- June 7, 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