HomeCompareCornerstone OnDemand vs Maki People

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Cornerstone OnDemand vs Maki People

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Maki People leads Cornerstone OnDemand by 6 points.

Maki People scores 62 (D) and Cornerstone OnDemand 56 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Maki People leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Cornerstone OnDemand leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Cornerstone OnDemand 58, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 43% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Cornerstone OnDemand is filed under ATS-integrated 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, Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordCornerstone OnDemandMaki People
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSFR
Founded19992021

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 34% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Cornerstone OnDemand 58 · Maki People 80

    4.0 weighted points to Maki People

  2. 15% weight · 62% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Cornerstone OnDemand 35 · Maki People 57

    3.3 weighted points to Maki People

  3. 20% weight · 78% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Cornerstone OnDemand 72 · Maki People 62

    2.0 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand

  4. 12% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Cornerstone OnDemand 45 · Maki People 52

    0.8 weighted points to Maki People

  5. 8% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Maki People 70

    0.8 weighted points to Maki People

  6. 12% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Cornerstone OnDemand 55 · Maki People 50

    0.6 weighted points to Cornerstone OnDemand

  7. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Cornerstone OnDemand 60 · Maki People 62

    0.3 weighted points to Maki People

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -6.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Cornerstone OnDemand minus Maki People.

CategoryWeightCornerstone OnDemandMaki PeopleΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%7262+10+2.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%5880-22-4.0
FRIA Support15%3557-22-3.3
Data Governance Disclosure15%6062-2-0.3
Human Oversight Design12%5550+5+0.6
Post-Market Monitoring12%4552-7-0.8
Customer Documentation8%6070-10-0.8
Total100%56 (F)62 (D)-6-6.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCornerstone OnDemandMaki People
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%30Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%21Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain30Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%30Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%155Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain175Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain

Cornerstone OnDemand has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 5 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 Cornerstone OnDemand and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Cornerstone OnDemand, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Cornerstone OnDemand last reviewed
June 7, 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.