§ The result
Maki People leads Manatal by 21 points.
Maki People finishes 21 points clear of Manatal under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 41 (F) — across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Manatal leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Maki People 80, Manatal 22 — and at an 18% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
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.
Vendor profile
Manatal
Cloud-based applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for agencies and HR teams, featuring an AI engine that scores and ranks candidates against job requirements and an asynchronous AI video Interviewer.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, Manatal under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Maki People | Manatal |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Low |
| Headquarters | FR | TH |
| Founded | 2021 | 2019 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Manatal 22
10.4 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Manatal 33
5.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Manatal 33
3.6 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Manatal 52
1.5 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Manatal 60
1.2 weighted points to Manatal
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Manatal 43
1.1 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Manatal 62
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +21.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +21 beside that +21.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Manatal.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Manatal | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 33 | +29 | +5.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 22 | +58 | +10.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 33 | +24 | +3.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 43 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 62 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 41 (F) | +21 | +21.9 |
§ 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 | Maki People | Manatal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 15 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Maki People has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Manatal has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Manatal, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Manatal 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