§ The result
Maki People leads Hireology by 10 points.
Maki People, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above Hireology, filed under ATS-integrated: 67 (D) against 57 (F) under rubric v1.0. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Maki People: Maki People is ahead on FRIA Support and Hireology on Bias Audit Transparency. Even FRIA Support, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Hireology 35, Maki People 62, 15% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage Maki People builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
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
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
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 | Hireology | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2010 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 34% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Maki People 62
4.0 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 57% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Maki People 64
2.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Maki People 64
1.8 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Maki People 74
1.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Maki People 66
1.1 weighted points to Maki People
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Maki People 80
0.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Maki People 55
0.5 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 64 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 80 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 62 | -27 | -4.0 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 64 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 66 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 55 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 74 | -16 | -1.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 67 (D) | -10 | -10.0 |
§ 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 | Hireology | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | 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% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | 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 | 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% | 25 | 4 | 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 |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 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 Hireology and Maki People sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology 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