§ The result
Maki People leads LinkedIn Recruiter by 10 points.
Maki People, filed under Assessment, comes out 10 points above LinkedIn Recruiter, filed under Sourcing: 67 (D) against 57 (F) under rubric v1.0. LinkedIn Recruiter takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 5 for Maki People, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — LinkedIn Recruiter 50, Maki People 80 — and at an 18% weight it carries 52% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
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
LinkedIn Recruiter is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Maki People under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Maki People is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | LinkedIn Recruiter | Maki People |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | FR |
| Founded | 2002 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Maki People 80
5.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
LinkedIn Recruiter 38 · Maki People 62
3.6 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 67 · Maki People 64
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
LinkedIn Recruiter 50 · Maki People 55
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
LinkedIn Recruiter 68 · Maki People 74
0.5 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
LinkedIn Recruiter 62 · Maki People 64
0.3 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.0 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 -9.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is LinkedIn Recruiter minus Maki People.
| Category | Weight | LinkedIn Recruiter | Maki People | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 67 | 64 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 50 | 80 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 62 | -24 | -3.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 66 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 55 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 74 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 67 (D) | -10 | -9.8 |
§ 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter | Maki People | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 34 | 5 | 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 |
LinkedIn Recruiter 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 LinkedIn Recruiter and 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 LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains, and 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- LinkedIn Recruiter 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