§ The result
Maki People leads Wonderlic by 19 points.
Maki People finishes 19 points clear of Wonderlic inside the Assessment cohort under rubric v1.0: 62 (D) against 43 (F). Maki People leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Wonderlic leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Maki People 80, Wonderlic 48, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 29% 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
Wonderlic
Wonderlic Select (formerly WonScore) is a pre-employment assessment that combines cognitive ability, personality, and motivation tests to score and rank candidates for job fit.
§ The record
Maki People and Wonderlic 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 | Wonderlic |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 1937 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Wonderlic 48
5.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 53% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · Wonderlic 25
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · Wonderlic 38
3.6 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · Wonderlic 33
2.3 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · Wonderlic 52
2.0 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · Wonderlic 55
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · Wonderlic 52
0.2 weighted points to Wonderlic
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.9 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 +19.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Wonderlic.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Wonderlic | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 48 | +32 | +5.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 25 | +32 | +4.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 38 | +24 | +3.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 55 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 43 (F) | +19 | +19.4 |
§ 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 | Wonderlic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 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 | 9 | 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; Wonderlic has 15 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 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 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 15 for Wonderlic, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Wonderlic 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