§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Turing on all 7 criteria.
Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, comes out 13 points above Turing, filed under Assessment: 49 against 36 under rubric v1.0. Jack & Jill takes all 7 criteria and Turing none of them; the nearest contest is Article 11 Technical Documentation, Jack & Jill 44 to Turing 42. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, Turing 28 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 7 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
Turing
Turing is an AI-powered talent platform that vets software engineers through automated multi-stage technical assessments and uses machine-learned ranking to score, match, and place them with client companies.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Turing under Assessment 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. Only Turing is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Turing |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Turing 28
6.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Turing 27
2.5 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Turing 45
1.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Turing 48
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Turing 44
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Turing 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Turing 42
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +12.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Turing.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Turing | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 42 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 28 | +34 | +6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 44 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 27 | +21 | +2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 48 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 36 (F) | +13 | +12.3 |
§ 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 | Turing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 8 | 7 | 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; Turing has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 7 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 Turing, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Turing 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