§ The result
Maki People leads Crosschq on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Maki People (Assessment) opens a 20-point lead on Crosschq (Screening), 67 (D) to 47 (F). Maki People takes all 7 criteria and Crosschq none of them; the nearest contest is Human Oversight Design, Crosschq 62 to Maki People 66. The advantage Maki People holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Crosschq 38, Maki People 80, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Maki People gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire 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
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2018 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Maki People 80
7.6 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · Maki People 62
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · Maki People 64
2.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · Maki People 55
1.8 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · Maki People 74
1.0 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · Maki People 64
0.9 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · Maki People 66
0.5 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -19.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -20 beside that -19.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 64 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 80 | -42 | -7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 62 | -32 | -4.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 74 | -12 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 67 (D) | -20 | -19.3 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 7 | 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% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 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 |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 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 Crosschq and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 74 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq 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