§ The result
Maki People leads Sapia.ai by 6 points.
Maki People scores 62 (D) and Sapia.ai 56 (F) under rubric v1.0 — a 6-point gap inside the Assessment cohort. Maki People leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Sapia.ai leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Maki People 80, Sapia.ai 52 — and at an 18% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 4 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
Sapia.ai
Structured, text-based chat interview that scores candidates on personality (HEXACO) and competency traits - with no video, audio, or demographic data used.
§ The record
Maki People and Sapia.ai 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 | Sapia.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | AU |
| Founded | 2021 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Sapia.ai 52
5.0 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Sapia.ai 35
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Sapia.ai 70
1.6 weighted points to Sapia.ai
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Sapia.ai 62
1.4 weighted points to Sapia.ai
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Sapia.ai 62
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Sapia.ai 50
0.2 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +6.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +6 beside that +6.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Sapia.ai.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Sapia.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 70 | -8 | -1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 52 | +28 | +5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 35 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 62 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 50 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 62 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 56 (F) | +6 | +6.2 |
§ 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 | Sapia.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 2 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 4 | 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; Sapia.ai has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Maki People and Sapia.ai 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 Sapia.ai, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Sapia.ai 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