§ The result
Sense leads Jack & Jill on all 7 criteria.
Sense scores 58 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. Sense is ahead of Jack & Jill on all 7 criteria but on none of them by as much as 20 raw points, the closest being Post-Market Monitoring at Jack & Jill 48 to Sense 52. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Jack & Jill 44, Sense 60, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Sense holds across the 7 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
Sense
Sense is a conversational AI talent engagement platform that screens, scores, matches, and schedules candidates for high-volume recruiting via chatbot, SMS/WhatsApp, and voice AI on top of a customer's ATS.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sense under Screening 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.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Sense 60
3.2 weighted points to Sense
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Sense 72
1.8 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Sense 38
1.5 weighted points to Sense
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Sense 58
1.5 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Sense 64
0.7 weighted points to Sense
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Sense 52
0.5 weighted points to Sense
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Sense 62
0.5 weighted points to Sense
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Sense.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Sense | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 60 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 72 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 58 (F) | -9 | -9.7 |
§ 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 | Sense | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 16 | 3 | 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; Sense has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Sense sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for Sense, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sense 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