§ The result
1 point separates Maki People and HiPeople.
Within the Assessment cohort, Maki People edges HiPeople by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 62 to 61. HiPeople and Maki People each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Maki People holds (headed by FRIA Support) adds up to more weighted points. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 35, Maki People 57 — and at a 15% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
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
HiPeople and Maki People are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | FR |
| Founded | 2019 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 45% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Maki People 57
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Maki People 50
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Maki People 52
1.0 weighted points to HiPeople
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Maki People 80
0.7 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Maki People 62
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Maki People 70
0.3 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 80 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 57 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 70 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 62 (D) | -1 | -1.1 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 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 HiPeople and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople 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