§ The result
Maki People leads Radancy by 21 points.
Maki People finishes 21 points clear of Radancy under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 41 (F) — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Radancy leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Maki People 80, Radancy 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 48% 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
Radancy
Radancy is an enterprise talent acquisition cloud combining recruitment marketing, career sites and CRM with agentic AI that sources, screens, scores, ranks and schedules candidates, including one-way video screening inherited from its myInterview acquisition.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, Radancy under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and Scheduling.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Maki People | Radancy |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2006 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Radancy 20
10.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Radancy 28
4.3 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 82% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Radancy 42
4.0 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Radancy 36
1.9 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Radancy 57
0.8 weighted points to Radancy
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Radancy 60
0.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Radancy 58
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +21.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 23.3 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 +21.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Radancy.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Radancy | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 20 | +60 | +10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 28 | +29 | +4.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 36 | +16 | +1.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 60 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 41 (F) | +21 | +21.6 |
§ 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 | Radancy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 17 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 16 | 6 | 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; Radancy has 22 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 6 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 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 22 for Radancy, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Radancy last reviewed
- August 2, 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