§ The result
Jack & Jill leads UKG by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and UKG, filed under ATS-integrated, on 44, 5 points apart. Jack & Jill leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 3, including Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, UKG 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 74% 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Jack & Jill | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · UKG 30
5.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · UKG 56
1.2 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · UKG 38
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · UKG 35
1.1 weighted points to UKG
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · UKG 48
0.8 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · UKG 55
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 48 | -4 | -0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 30 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 55 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 44 (F) | +5 | +4.7 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | — |
| 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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