§ The result
Tezi leads Jack & Jill by 9 points.
Tezi scores 58 and Jack & Jill 49 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Screening and Sourcing cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Tezi: Tezi is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Jack & Jill on Customer Documentation. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Jack & Jill 62, Tezi 83, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Tezi builds across the 6 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
Tezi
Tezi's product "Max" is an autonomous AI recruiting agent that sources passive candidates, screens and ranks inbound applications via conversational chat, and schedules interviews, integrating with ATS and calendar tools.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Tezi under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Tezi |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2024 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Tezi 83
3.8 weighted points to Tezi
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Tezi 52
1.6 weighted points to Tezi
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Tezi 38
1.5 weighted points to Tezi
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Tezi 58
1.2 weighted points to Tezi
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Tezi 55
1.1 weighted points to Tezi
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Tezi 63
0.6 weighted points to Tezi
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Tezi 50
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Tezi.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Tezi | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 83 | -21 | -3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 63 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 58 (F) | -9 | -9.2 |
§ 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 | Tezi | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 11 | 3 | 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; Tezi has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 3 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Tezi sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Tezi, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tezi last reviewed
- June 7, 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