§ The result
Maki People leads Glider AI on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Maki People opens a 15-point lead on Glider AI, 67 (D) to 52 (F), with both scored in the Assessment cohort. Maki People takes all 7 criteria and Glider AI none of them; the nearest contest is Data Governance Disclosure, Glider AI 54 to Maki People 64. The advantage Maki People holds is spread out: FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Glider AI 35, Maki People 62, 15% weight), yet it supplies only 28% of the weighted points Maki People gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Glider AI
Glider AI is a skills-validation platform that screens and verifies candidates with auto-scored skills assessments and coding simulations, autonomous AI video and voice interviews that score responses against job requirements, live coding interviews, AI proctoring, and biometric ID verification.
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
Glider AI and Maki People are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Glider AI | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2020 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 28% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Glider AI 35 · Maki People 62
4.0 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Glider AI 52 · Maki People 64
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Glider AI 68 · Maki People 80
2.2 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Glider AI 40 · Maki People 55
1.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Glider AI 54 · Maki People 64
1.5 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Glider AI 55 · Maki People 66
1.3 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Glider AI 60 · Maki People 74
1.1 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -14.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Glider AI minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Glider AI | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 64 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 68 | 80 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -4.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 64 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 66 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 55 | -15 | -1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 74 | -14 | -1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 67 (D) | -15 | -14.4 |
§ 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 | Glider AI | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 1 | 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 domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Glider AI has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 6 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 Glider AI and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 33 for Glider AI, across 4 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Glider AI 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