§ The result
Jack & Jill leads Workstream by 10 points.
Jack & Jill, filed under Sourcing, comes out 10 points above Workstream, filed under Screening: 49 against 39 under rubric v1.0. Workstream takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 5 for Jack & Jill, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jack & Jill 62, Workstream 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 74% 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workstream 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. Only Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2025 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Workstream 20
7.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Workstream 35
1.6 weighted points to Jack & Jill
20% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Workstream 40
0.8 weighted points to Jack & Jill
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jack & Jill 58 · Workstream 61
0.4 weighted points to Workstream
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Workstream 27
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Workstream 47
0.1 weighted points to Jack & Jill
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 27 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 47 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 61 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 56 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 39 (F) | +10 | +9.9 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources 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 | 28 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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