§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, Teamtailor takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) edges Teamtailor (ATS-integrated) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 49 to 47. Teamtailor 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, Teamtailor 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 83% 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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Teamtailor under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | SE |
| Founded | 2025 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Teamtailor 30
5.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Teamtailor 42
2.1 weighted points to Teamtailor
15% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Teamtailor 58
1.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Teamtailor 50
1.2 weighted points to Teamtailor
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Teamtailor 42
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Teamtailor 62
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 50 | -6 | -1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 30 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 47 (F) | +2 | +1.7 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources 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 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 14 | 6 | 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; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 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 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor 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