§ The result
Jack & Jill leads TestDome by 12 points.
Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, comes out 12 points above TestDome, filed under Assessment: 49 against 37 under rubric v1.0. Jack & Jill leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while TestDome leads 2, including Customer Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, TestDome 15 — and at an 18% weight it carries 70% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 4 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
TestDome
TestDome sells pay-per-candidate online skills tests for coding, Excel and more than 100 other skills. The tests are scored automatically, and open-ended answers can be scored by AI. AI analysis of webcam and screen proctoring recordings flags possible cheating, and a live code-interview tool is included.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, TestDome 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 TestDome is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | TestDome |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | HR |
| Founded | 2025 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · TestDome 15
8.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · TestDome 30
2.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · TestDome 40
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · TestDome 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · TestDome 60
0.3 weighted points to TestDome
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · TestDome 50
0.3 weighted points to TestDome
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus TestDome.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | TestDome | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 15 | +47 | +8.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 30 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 37 (F) | +12 | +11.5 |
§ 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 | TestDome | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 5 | 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 | 27 | 5 | 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; TestDome has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for TestDome, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- TestDome 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