§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Toggl Hire by 12 points.
Jack & Jill sits 12 points above Toggl Hire under rubric v1.0 — 49 against 37 — with Jack & Jill filed under Sourcing and Toggl Hire under Assessment. Jack & Jill leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Toggl Hire leads 2, including Data Governance Disclosure. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Toggl Hire 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 58% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 5 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
Toggl Hire
Toggl Hire is a skills-first hiring platform (now being retired) that screens candidates with auto-graded skills tests, async video interviews and homework assignments, bundled with a lightweight ATS.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Toggl Hire 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 Toggl Hire is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Toggl Hire |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | EE |
| Founded | 2025 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Toggl Hire 20
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Toggl Hire 30
2.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Toggl Hire 35
1.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Toggl Hire 55
1.1 weighted points to Toggl Hire
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Toggl Hire 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Toggl Hire 50
0.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Toggl Hire 30
0.3 weighted points to Toggl Hire
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.5 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 +11.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Toggl Hire.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Toggl Hire | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 55 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 37 (F) | +12 | +11.8 |
§ 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 | Toggl Hire | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 10 | 4 | 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; Toggl Hire has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 4 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for Toggl Hire, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Toggl Hire 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