§ The result
1 point separates Test Partnership and Jack & Jill.
Test Partnership holds a 1-point edge over Jack & Jill under rubric v1.0, 50 to 49, across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Jack & Jill takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 4 for Test Partnership, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Test Partnership takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Jack & Jill 44, Test Partnership 57), which is 46% of the weighted advantage Test Partnership holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Jack & Jill 48 to Test Partnership 33.
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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Test Partnership 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 Test Partnership is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2025 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 26% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Test Partnership 57
2.6 weighted points to Test Partnership
18% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Test Partnership 48
2.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Test Partnership 33
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Test Partnership 57
1.3 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Test Partnership 36
1.2 weighted points to Test Partnership
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Test Partnership 62
0.5 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 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 -1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 57 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +2.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 36 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 50 (F) | -1 | -1.3 |
§ 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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 5 | 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 | 26 | 6 | Sources 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; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership last reviewed
- September 25, 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