§ The result
Maki People leads Teamtailor by 15 points.
Maki People finishes 15 points clear of Teamtailor under rubric v1.0 — 62 (D) against 47 (F) — across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Teamtailor leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Maki People 80, Teamtailor 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% 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
Teamtailor
Teamtailor is a Stockholm-based applicant tracking and employer-branding platform whose OpenAI-powered "Co-pilot" assists recruiters with candidate screening, resume and interview summaries, talent-pool matching, interview-question generation, and AI-assisted job-ad and content writing.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, Teamtailor 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 | Teamtailor |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | SE |
| Founded | 2021 | 2013 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Teamtailor 30
9.0 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Teamtailor 50
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 82% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Teamtailor 42
2.3 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Teamtailor 42
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Teamtailor 62
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Teamtailor 58
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Teamtailor 54
0.5 weighted points to Teamtailor
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +15.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +15 beside that +15.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Teamtailor.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Teamtailor | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 30 | +50 | +9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 42 | +15 | +2.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 62 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 47 (F) | +15 | +15.6 |
§ 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 | Teamtailor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources 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 | 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 | 14 | 6 | 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; Teamtailor has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 20 for Teamtailor, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Teamtailor 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