§ The result
Maki People leads Cangrade by 17 points.
Maki People finishes 17 points clear of Cangrade inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 62 (D) against 45 (F). Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cangrade leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cangrade 35, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cangrade
Cangrade is a predictive pre-hire assessment and screening platform that scores candidates against customer-specific success models built from roughly 50 psychometric traits, with add-on modules for resume screening, structured and video interviews, interview scheduling, and reference checking.
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
Cangrade and Maki People are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cangrade | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2014 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cangrade 35 · Maki People 80
8.1 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cangrade 30 · Maki People 57
4.0 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cangrade 32 · Maki People 52
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cangrade 52 · Maki People 62
2.0 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cangrade 54 · Maki People 62
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cangrade 56 · Maki People 50
0.7 weighted points to Cangrade
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cangrade 62 · Maki People 70
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -17.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -17 beside that -17.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cangrade minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Cangrade | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 80 | -45 | -8.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 57 | -27 | -4.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 52 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 62 (D) | -17 | -17.7 |
§ 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 | Cangrade | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 4 | 3 | — | 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% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 10 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Cangrade has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 10 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 Cangrade and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Cangrade, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cangrade 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