§ The result
1 point separates Xobin and Jack & Jill.
Xobin (Assessment) edges Jack & Jill (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 50 to 49. Xobin leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Jack & Jill leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Xobin (Jack & Jill 44, Xobin 62), 57% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Bias Audit Transparency, Jack & Jill 62 to Xobin 43.
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
Xobin
Xobin is a talent-assessment platform that sells skills, coding, communication and psychometric tests alongside generative-AI answer scoring (AI Evaluate), AI-led interviews, AI proctoring and NURA, an AI recruiting agent that parses resumes, interviews candidates and builds shortlists.
§ The record
Jack & Jill is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Xobin 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 Xobin is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Jack & Jill | Xobin |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | IN |
| Founded | 2025 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jack & Jill 44 · Xobin 62
3.6 weighted points to Xobin
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jack & Jill 62 · Xobin 43
3.4 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jack & Jill 48 · Xobin 57
1.3 weighted points to Xobin
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jack & Jill 48 · Xobin 38
1.2 weighted points to Jack & Jill
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jack & Jill 28 · Xobin 35
1.1 weighted points to Xobin
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jack & Jill 56 · Xobin 60
0.3 weighted points to Xobin
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.9 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 -1.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jack & Jill minus Xobin.
| Category | Weight | Jack & Jill | Xobin | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 62 | -18 | -3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 62 | 43 | +19 | +3.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 48 | 38 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 50 (F) | -1 | -1.7 |
§ 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 | Xobin | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 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 | 27 | 5 | 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; Xobin has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Jack & Jill and Xobin sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for Jack & Jill, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Xobin, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jack & Jill last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Xobin 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