§ The result
Maki People leads Arctic Shores by 16 points.
Maki People finishes 16 points clear of Arctic Shores inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 62 (D) against 46 (F). Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Arctic Shores leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Arctic Shores 35, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Arctic Shores
Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
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
Arctic Shores 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 | Arctic Shores | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | FR |
| Founded | 2013 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Arctic Shores 35 · Maki People 80
8.1 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Arctic Shores 35 · Maki People 57
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Arctic Shores 30 · Maki People 52
2.6 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Arctic Shores 50 · Maki People 62
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Arctic Shores 57 · Maki People 62
0.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Arctic Shores 56 · Maki People 50
0.7 weighted points to Arctic Shores
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Arctic Shores 64 · Maki People 70
0.5 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -16.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Arctic Shores minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Arctic Shores | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 80 | -45 | -8.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 57 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 70 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 62 (D) | -16 | -16.9 |
§ 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 | Arctic Shores | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Arctic Shores has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Maki People has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Arctic Shores, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Arctic Shores last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 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