§ The result
Maki People leads Pinpoint by 5 points.
Maki People scores 62 (D) and Pinpoint 57 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Maki People and Pinpoint each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Maki People holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Maki People 80, Pinpoint 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 3 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
Pinpoint
Pinpoint is an applicant tracking system for in-house talent teams that layers AI-assisted screening onto core hiring workflows - candidate match scores, AI filters, anonymized screening, an interview notetaker, and a hiring copilot for outreach and rejections.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, Pinpoint 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 and Colorado AI Act. Only Maki People is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Maki People | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | JE |
| Founded | 2021 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Pinpoint 42
6.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 66% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Pinpoint 38
2.9 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Pinpoint 72
2.0 weighted points to Pinpoint
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Pinpoint 64
1.7 weighted points to Pinpoint
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Pinpoint 68
0.9 weighted points to Pinpoint
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Pinpoint 66
0.3 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Pinpoint.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Pinpoint | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 72 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 42 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 38 | +19 | +2.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 68 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 64 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 66 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 57 (F) | +5 | +5.4 |
§ 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 | Pinpoint | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 18 | 2 | 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; Pinpoint has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 2 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 Pinpoint, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Pinpoint 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