§ The result
Maki People leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 32 points between Maki People (Assessment) and XOR (Screening): 62 (D) for Maki People, 30 (F) for XOR. Maki People leads every one of the 7 criteria and 5 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; XOR leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Maki People 80, XOR 18, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 34% of the weighted advantage Maki People holds across the 7 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Maki People is filed under Assessment AI, XOR under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Scheduling.
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 | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | FR | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Maki People 80 · XOR 18
11.2 weighted points to Maki People
20% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Maki People 62 · XOR 20
8.4 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Maki People 57 · XOR 25
4.8 weighted points to Maki People
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Maki People 62 · XOR 42
3.0 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Maki People 52 · XOR 33
2.3 weighted points to Maki People
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Maki People 70 · XOR 48
1.8 weighted points to Maki People
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Maki People 50 · XOR 40
1.2 weighted points to Maki People
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +32.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 32.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +32 beside that +32.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Maki People minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Maki People | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 20 | +42 | +8.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 80 | 18 | +62 | +11.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 57 | 25 | +32 | +4.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 42 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 52 | 33 | +19 | +2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 70 | 48 | +22 | +1.8 |
| Total | 100% | 62 (D) | 30 (F) | +32 | +32.6 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 11 | 7 | 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; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 22 for Maki People, across 3 distinct source domains, and 18 for XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Maki People last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR 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