§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Sova Assessment takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges Sova Assessment (Assessment) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. Sova Assessment leads more of the criteria than Jack & Jill — 4 to 3 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Jack & Jill leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Jack & Jill. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Sova Assessment 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 77% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
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
Sova Assessment
Sova Assessment is a UK-based enterprise talent assessment platform combining personality questionnaires, cognitive and ability tests, situational judgement, video interviews, virtual assessment centres and AI-led role simulations into a single occupational-psychology-validated candidate scoring workflow.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Sova Assessment 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 Sova Assessment is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Sova Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2025 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Sova Assessment 38
4.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Sova Assessment 55
2.2 weighted points to Sova Assessment
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Sova Assessment 40
1.8 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Sova Assessment 40
1.0 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Sova Assessment 52
0.6 weighted points to Sova Assessment
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Sova Assessment 62
0.5 weighted points to Sova Assessment
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Sova Assessment 55
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Sova Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Sova Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 55 | -11 | -2.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 48 (F) | +1 | +0.6 |
§ 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 | Sova Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 2 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 8 | 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; Sova Assessment has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Sova Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Sova Assessment, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sova Assessment last reviewed
- August 2, 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