§ The result
Maki People leads Saville Assessment on all 7 criteria.
Maki People finishes 19 points clear of Saville Assessment inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 67 (D) against 48 (F). Maki People leads every one of the 7 criteria, Saville Assessment none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Maki People 64 to Saville Assessment 55. The advantage Maki People holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Maki People 80, Saville Assessment 42, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 36% of the weighted points Maki People gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Saville Assessment
Saville Assessment publishes the Wave personality questionnaires, Swift aptitude tests and situational judgment tests. They are scored automatically against norm groups and delivered through the Oasys platform, the Wave Connect hiring platform (which uses AI to build role profiles from job descriptions) and a two-minute Screener that returns a fit band into the employer's ATS.
§ The record
Maki People and Saville Assessment 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 | Saville Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | FR | GB |
| Founded | 2021 | 2004 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Saville Assessment 42
6.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 62 · Saville Assessment 40
3.3 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 64 · Saville Assessment 50
2.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 55 · Saville Assessment 38
2.0 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 64 · Saville Assessment 55
1.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 66 · Saville Assessment 55
1.3 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 74 · Saville Assessment 60
1.1 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +18.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +18.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Saville Assessment.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Saville Assessment | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 64 | 50 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 42 | +38 | +6.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +3.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 55 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 55 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 74 | 60 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 67 (D) | 48 (F) | +19 | +18.8 |
§ 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 | Saville Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Maki People has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Saville Assessment has 40 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Maki People and Saville Assessment sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 71 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains, and 40 for Saville Assessment, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- September 8, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Saville Assessment last reviewed
- September 25, 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