§ The result
Maki People leads Checkr by 8 points.
Maki People scores 62 (D) and Checkr 54 (F) under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Maki People leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Checkr leads 2, including Human Oversight Design, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Checkr 35, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 66% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
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
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Maki People is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Checkr | 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 · 51% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Maki People 80
8.1 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Maki People 57
3.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Maki People 50
1.9 weighted points to Checkr
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Maki People 62
1.6 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Maki People 52
0.2 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Maki People 70
0.2 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -8.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 62 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 80 | -45 | -8.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 57 | -25 | -3.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 50 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 70 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 62 (D) | -8 | -8.7 |
§ 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 | Checkr | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr 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