§ The result
Maki People leads Plum by 8 points.
Maki People scores 62 (D) and Plum 54 (F) under rubric v1.0 — an 8-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Maki People leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Plum leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Maki People 57, Plum 28 — and at a 15% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 5 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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
§ The record
Maki People and Plum are both filed under Assessment 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 | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | CA |
| Founded | 2021 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 45% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Plum 28
4.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Plum 36
1.9 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Plum 54
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Plum 58
0.8 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Plum 63
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
18% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Plum 83
0.5 weighted points to Plum
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Plum 52
0.2 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Plum.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 83 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 28 | +29 | +4.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 36 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 63 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 54 (F) | +8 | +8.0 |
§ 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 | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 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 | 15 | 4 | Audit reportSources 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 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 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum last reviewed
- June 7, 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