§ The result
Maki People leads Emi on all 7 criteria.
Maki People (Assessment) and Emi (Screening) are 34 points apart under rubric v1.0, 67 (D) for Maki People against 33 (F) for Emi. On every one of the 7 criteria Maki People scores 20 raw points or more above Emi, 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 (Emi 18, Maki People 80, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 33% of the weighted points Maki People gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Emi
Emi runs AI agents on WhatsApp, SMS and Messenger that screen and score frontline job applicants against employer-set criteria, schedule interviews, and collect hiring documents and check them against Mexican government databases.
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
Emi is filed under Screening AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Maki People is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Emi | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | AR | FR |
| Founded | 2017 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Emi 18 · Maki People 80
11.2 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Emi 28 · Maki People 64
7.2 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 70% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Emi 25 · Maki People 62
5.5 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Emi 44 · Maki People 64
3.0 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Emi 44 · Maki People 66
2.6 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Emi 35 · Maki People 55
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Emi 48 · Maki People 74
2.1 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -34.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 34.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -34 beside that -34.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Emi minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Emi | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 28 | 64 | -36 | -7.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 80 | -62 | -11.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 62 | -37 | -5.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 44 | 64 | -20 | -3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 44 | 66 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 55 | -20 | -2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 48 | 74 | -26 | -2.1 |
| Total | 100% | 33 (F) | 67 (D) | -34 | -34.0 |
§ 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 | Emi | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | 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 |
Emi has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 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 Emi 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 Emi, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Emi 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