§ The result
Maki People leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 separates Maki People and Cognisess, both Assessment entries, by 37 points: 67 (D) for Maki People, 30 (F) for Cognisess. On every one of the 7 criteria Maki People scores 20 raw points or more above Cognisess, which leads none of them. The advantage Maki People holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Cognisess 20, Maki People 80, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 30% of the weighted points Maki People gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
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
Cognisess and Maki People are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Video interview and Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | FR |
| Founded | 2011 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · Maki People 80
10.8 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 51% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · Maki People 64
7.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · Maki People 62
6.3 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · Maki People 64
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · Maki People 66
2.9 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · Maki People 55
2.8 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · Maki People 74
2.7 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -36.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 36.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -37 beside that -36.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 64 | -39 | -7.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 80 | -60 | -10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 62 | -42 | -6.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 64 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 66 | -24 | -2.9 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 55 | -23 | -2.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 74 | -34 | -2.7 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 67 (D) | -37 | -36.6 |
§ 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 | Cognisess | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | 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 |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 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 Cognisess and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess 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