§ The result
Maki People leads Workstream on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 28 points between Maki People (Assessment) and Workstream (Screening): 67 (D) for Maki People, 39 (F) for Workstream. Maki People leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Workstream leads none. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Maki People 80, Workstream 20, 18% weight), is only 39% of the weighted advantage Maki People builds 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Scheduling and Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Maki People | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · Workstream 20
10.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 58% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 62 · Workstream 27
5.3 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 64 · Workstream 40
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 64 · Workstream 47
2.5 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 55 · Workstream 35
2.4 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 74 · Workstream 56
1.4 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 66 · Workstream 61
0.6 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +27.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 27.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +28 beside that +27.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 64 | 40 | +24 | +4.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 20 | +60 | +10.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 62 | 27 | +35 | +5.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 47 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 61 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 55 | 35 | +20 | +2.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 74 | 56 | +18 | +1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 67 (D) | 39 (F) | +28 | +27.8 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 6 | Sources 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Maki People and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Maki People, across 5 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- September 8, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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