§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Willo by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 49 and Willo, filed under Video interview, on 41, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Jack & Jill: Jack & Jill is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Willo on Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, Willo 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 64% of the weighted advantage Jack & Jill holds across the 5 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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Willo under Video interview 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 Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2025 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Willo 30
5.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Willo 36
1.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Willo 38
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Willo 53
0.8 weighted points to Willo
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Willo 62
0.5 weighted points to Willo
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Willo 25
0.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Willo 54
0.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +7.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 30 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 25 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 53 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 36 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 54 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 41 (F) | +8 | +7.8 |
§ 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 | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 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 | 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 | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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