§ The result
Maki People leads Fountain by 18 points.
Maki People finishes 18 points clear of Fountain under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 44 (F) — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Fountain leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fountain 30, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 46% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
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
Fountain 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 | Fountain | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2014 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fountain 30 · Maki People 80
9.0 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 64% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fountain 30 · Maki People 57
4.0 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fountain 50 · Maki People 62
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fountain 40 · Maki People 52
1.4 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fountain 52 · Maki People 70
1.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fountain 55 · Maki People 62
1.1 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fountain 58 · Maki People 50
1.0 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -18.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -18 beside that -18.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fountain minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Fountain | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 80 | -50 | -9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 57 | -27 | -4.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 52 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 62 (D) | -18 | -18.4 |
§ 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 | Fountain | 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% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fountain 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