§ The result
3 points separate Wellfound and Jack & Jill.
Wellfound (Screening) edges Jack & Jill (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 49. Jack & Jill and Wellfound each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Wellfound holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Jack & Jill 62, Wellfound 82) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 69% of the weighted advantage Wellfound holds across the 3 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
Wellfound
Wellfound is a startup hiring marketplace and AI recruiting platform whose wellfound:ai suite auto-generates screening criteria from a job description, then scores and ranks inbound applicants (AI Resume Screening) and surfaces outbound candidates from a talent graph of 10M opt-in Wellfound profiles plus 500M+ enriched external profiles.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Wellfound under Screening 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.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Wellfound |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2012 |
§ 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 · Wellfound 82
3.6 weighted points to Wellfound
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Wellfound 60
1.4 weighted points to Wellfound
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Wellfound 40
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Wellfound 52
0.7 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Wellfound 45
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Wellfound 58
0.2 weighted points to Wellfound
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Wellfound.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Wellfound | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 82 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 28 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 52 (F) | -3 | -3.2 |
§ 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 | Wellfound | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 2 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 22 | 9 | Audit reportSources 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; Wellfound has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 22 with a source URL, 9 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Wellfound sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 27 for Wellfound, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wellfound last reviewed
- August 2, 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