§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Talogy by 7 points.
Jack & Jill scores 49 and Talogy 42 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. Talogy takes 3 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 4 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Talogy 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 65% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 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
Talogy
Talogy sells psychometric talent-assessment products - cognitive ability tests (Logiks, Mindgage), personality inventories (Caliper, P.A.P.I.), values-based screening, situational judgement and job simulations, and 360 feedback - delivered through its TalogyTech platform for candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Talogy 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 Talogy is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Talogy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 1946 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Talogy 30
5.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Talogy 32
1.9 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Talogy 53
1.8 weighted points to Talogy
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Talogy 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Talogy 52
0.6 weighted points to Talogy
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Talogy 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Talogy 58
0.2 weighted points to Talogy
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.3 — 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 +6.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Talogy.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Talogy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 53 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 30 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 52 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 32 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 42 (F) | +7 | +6.3 |
§ 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 | Talogy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 22 | 9 | 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; Talogy has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 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 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 28 for Talogy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Talogy 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