§ The result
Maki People leads Humanly by 20 points.
Maki People finishes 20 points clear of Humanly under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 42 (F) — across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Humanly leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Humanly 40, Maki People 80, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
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
Humanly 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, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Humanly | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2018 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Humanly 40 · Maki People 80
7.2 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Humanly 45 · Maki People 62
3.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 62% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Humanly 35 · Maki People 57
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Humanly 40 · Maki People 62
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Humanly 30 · Maki People 52
2.6 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Humanly 52 · Maki People 70
1.4 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Humanly 58 · Maki People 50
1.0 weighted points to Humanly
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 22.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -20 beside that -20.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Humanly minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Humanly | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 62 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 80 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 57 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 62 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 52 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 70 | -18 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 62 (D) | -20 | -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 | Humanly | 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 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% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 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% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Humanly 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