§ The result
Maki People leads Draup by 20 points.
Maki People finishes 20 points clear of Draup under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 42 (F) — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Draup leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
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
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Maki People is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2017 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Maki People 80
8.5 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 60% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Maki People 57
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Maki People 52
2.9 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Maki People 62
2.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Maki People 62
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Maki People 70
1.0 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Maki People 50
1.0 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -20.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.1 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 -20.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 62 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 80 | -47 | -8.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 57 | -32 | -4.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 62 | -8 | -1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 52 | -24 | -2.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 70 | -13 | -1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 62 (D) | -20 | -20.2 |
§ 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 | Draup | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 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 Draup and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup 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