§ The result
Maki People leads Jobma by 13 points.
Maki People sits 13 points above Jobma under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 49 (F) — with Maki People filed under Assessment and Jobma under Video interview. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Jobma leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Jobma 40, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Jobma
AI video interviewing platform offering one-way (pre-recorded), live, and agentic AI interviews with automated transcription and AI scoring of candidate video, audio, and written responses as recruiter decision-support.
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
Jobma is filed under Video interview AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Mobley v. Workday and Colorado AI Act.
| Record | Jobma | 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 · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Jobma 40 · Maki People 80
7.2 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 67% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Jobma 35 · Maki People 57
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Jobma 55 · Maki People 62
1.4 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Jobma 60 · Maki People 50
1.2 weighted points to Jobma
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Jobma 44 · Maki People 52
1.0 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Jobma 56 · Maki People 62
0.9 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Jobma 62 · Maki People 70
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Jobma minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | Jobma | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 80 | -40 | -7.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 57 | -22 | -3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 62 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 44 | 52 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 49 (F) | 62 (D) | -13 | -13.2 |
§ 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 | Jobma | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 17 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 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 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain, and 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Jobma last reviewed
- July 17, 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