§ The result
Maki People leads Alooba on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 separates Maki People and Alooba, both Assessment entries, by 29 points: 67 (D) for Maki People, 38 (F) for Alooba. Alooba leads none of the 7 criteria, and Maki People is ahead on 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Alooba 22, Maki People 80, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Alooba
Alooba sells online skills assessments (auto-graded SQL, Python/R, multiple-choice and data-analysis tests, plus manually graded free-response and one-way video questions) that employers use to screen, benchmark and optionally auto-reject job candidates.
Vendor profile
Maki People
Maki People is a Paris-based AI hiring platform whose core product is pre-hire assessment and screening of candidate skills, behaviors, and situational judgement at high volume, extended with conversational AI agents for screening, interview support, and scheduling.
§ The record
Alooba and Maki People are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Alooba | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AU | FR |
| Founded | 2019 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Alooba 22 · Maki People 80
10.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 55% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Alooba 28 · Maki People 62
5.1 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Alooba 40 · Maki People 64
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Alooba 45 · Maki People 64
2.9 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Alooba 36 · Maki People 55
2.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Alooba 55 · Maki People 66
1.3 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Alooba 58 · Maki People 74
1.3 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -28.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 28.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -29 beside that -28.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Alooba minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Alooba | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 40 | 64 | -24 | -4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 80 | -58 | -10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 28 | 62 | -34 | -5.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 64 | -19 | -2.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 66 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 36 | 55 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 74 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 38 (F) | 67 (D) | -29 | -28.1 |
§ 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 | Alooba | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Alooba has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Maki People has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Alooba and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Alooba, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Alooba last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Maki People last reviewed
- September 8, 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