§ The result
Maki People leads Paradox on 6 of the 7 criteria.
Maki People finishes 21 points clear of Paradox under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 41 (F) — across the Assessment and Scheduling cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Paradox is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 Maki People leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Maki People 62 to Paradox 45. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: FRIA Support (Maki People 57, Paradox 25) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Maki People 80, Paradox 50), the second being 25% 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Maki People is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Maki People | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 25% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Paradox 50
5.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 48% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Paradox 25
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Paradox 40
4.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Paradox 45
2.5 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Paradox 35
2.0 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Paradox 45
2.0 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +21.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 21.2 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 +21.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 50 | +30 | +5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 25 | +32 | +4.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 45 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 35 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 45 | +25 | +2.0 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 41 (F) | +21 | +21.2 |
§ 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 | Maki People | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 8 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Maki People has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Maki People and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 32 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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