§ The result
Jack & Jill takes the total, VidCruiter takes more of the criteria.
Jack & Jill holds a 1-point edge over VidCruiter under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48, across the Sourcing and Video interview cohorts. VidCruiter leads more of the criteria, 5 against 2 for Jack & Jill, yet Jack & Jill takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, VidCruiter 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 71% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 2 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
VidCruiter
VidCruiter is an enterprise recruitment platform combining live and pre-recorded video interviewing, structured interview workflows, automated scheduling, skills testing, automated reference checks, and AI features such as transcript-based AI Interview Scoring, AI Interview Notes, and AI fraud detection.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, VidCruiter under Video interview 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 VidCruiter is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | VidCruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | CA |
| Founded | 2025 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · VidCruiter 38
4.3 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · VidCruiter 58
2.8 weighted points to VidCruiter
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · VidCruiter 33
1.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · VidCruiter 56
1.2 weighted points to VidCruiter
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · VidCruiter 32
0.6 weighted points to VidCruiter
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · VidCruiter 62
0.5 weighted points to VidCruiter
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · VidCruiter 60
0.3 weighted points to VidCruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus VidCruiter.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | VidCruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 58 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 56 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 48 (F) | +1 | +0.7 |
§ 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 | VidCruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 12 | 6 | 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; VidCruiter has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for VidCruiter, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- VidCruiter 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