§ The result
Maki People leads HackerEarth on all 7 criteria.
Maki People finishes 21 points clear of HackerEarth inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 67 (D) against 46 (F). Maki People takes all 7 criteria and HackerEarth none of them; the nearest contest is Article 11 Technical Documentation, HackerEarth 55 to Maki People 64. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HackerEarth 35, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HackerEarth
HackerEarth is a technical-hiring platform that auto-scores coding assessments under AI proctoring, runs FaceCode live coding interviews with AI-generated summaries, and offers OnScreen, an AI video-avatar interviewer that scores candidates against a fixed rubric.
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
HackerEarth and Maki People are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | HackerEarth | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2012 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HackerEarth 35 · Maki People 80
8.1 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HackerEarth 32 · Maki People 62
4.5 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HackerEarth 55 · Maki People 64
1.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HackerEarth 52 · Maki People 64
1.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HackerEarth 42 · Maki People 55
1.6 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HackerEarth 57 · Maki People 74
1.4 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HackerEarth 56 · Maki People 66
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -20.3 — 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 -21 beside that -20.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HackerEarth minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | HackerEarth | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 64 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 80 | -45 | -8.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 62 | -30 | -4.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 64 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 66 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 55 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 74 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 67 (D) | -21 | -20.3 |
§ 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 | HackerEarth | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 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% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 8 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 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 Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HackerEarth 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