§ The result
Jack & Jill and Versant by Pearson tie at 49.
Jack & Jill (Sourcing) and Versant by Pearson (Assessment) tie at 49 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Jack & Jill leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Versant by Pearson 4, yet the two totals land on the same number. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Versant by Pearson (Jack & Jill 44, Versant by Pearson 63), 72% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Bias Audit Transparency, Jack & Jill 62 to Versant by Pearson 42.
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
Versant by Pearson
Versant by Pearson is a suite of AI-scored English proficiency tests (plus spoken Spanish, French, Arabic and Dutch) that automatically score candidates' spoken and written responses on Pearson's Global Scale of English within minutes, used by employers such as contact centres and BPOs to screen applicants and benchmark staff through the ScoreKeeper dashboard.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Versant by Pearson 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 Versant by Pearson is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Versant by Pearson |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2025 | 1844 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Versant by Pearson 63
3.8 weighted points to Versant by Pearson
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Versant by Pearson 42
3.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Versant by Pearson 53
0.8 weighted points to Versant by Pearson
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Versant by Pearson 43
0.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Versant by Pearson 61
0.4 weighted points to Versant by Pearson
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Versant by Pearson 30
0.3 weighted points to Versant by Pearson
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Versant by Pearson 56
0.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Versant by Pearson.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Versant by Pearson | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 63 | -19 | -3.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 30 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 53 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 43 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 61 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 49 (F) | - | -0.8 |
§ 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 | Versant by Pearson | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 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 | 23 | 6 | Sources 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; Versant by Pearson has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Versant by Pearson sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for Versant by Pearson, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Versant by Pearson 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