§ The result
Maki People leads Criteria by 9 points.
Maki People scores 62 (D) and Criteria 53 (F) under rubric v1.0 — a 9-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Maki People leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Criteria leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Criteria 48, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
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
Criteria 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 | Criteria | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2006 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · Maki People 80
5.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · Maki People 57
3.8 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · Maki People 62
1.2 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · Maki People 52
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · Maki People 70
0.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · Maki People 50
0.7 weighted points to Criteria
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -9.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Criteria minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 62 | +6 | +1.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 80 | -32 | -5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 57 | -25 | -3.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 50 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 70 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 62 (D) | -9 | -9.6 |
§ 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 | Criteria | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria 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.
§ Where next