Juicebox vs Maki: Which Fits Your Hiring Stack?
Juicebox and Maki are built to do different things. Juicebox positions itself as AI recruiting platform (PeopleGPT natural-language people search). Maki positions itself as hiring intelligence end to end (AI agents, assessments; EU/GDPR angle). The practical difference shows up in four places: whether the tool sources candidates, what an interview actually looks like, what evidence sits behind a score, and whether pricing is published. Each section below is drawn from what the two companies state publicly. The Cognitive publishes this comparison and competes with both.
Juicebox vs Maki at a glance
| Juicebox | Maki | |
|---|---|---|
| Sourcing | Included — PeopleGPT natural-language search | Not offered |
| Interview format | Not offered; search and sourcing only | Structured tests and assessments |
| Evidence behind a score | None; you screen the candidates yourself | Test scores |
| Pricing visibility | Published | Published, EU/GDPR positioned |
Where Juicebox is strong
- Natural-language people search (PeopleGPT) that made AI sourcing accessible to small teams
- Fast-moving product with strong SEO/AEO execution and honest content
- Affordable entry point relative to enterprise sourcing seats
Where Maki is strong
- Large skills-test library (150+) and science-based assessment approach
- Strong European/GDPR compliance story and enterprise deployments
Does Juicebox or Maki source candidates?
| Half of the pipeline | What it has to deliver | Juicebox | Maki |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sourcing (outbound) | Candidates who have not applied, with contact details that resolve | Included — PeopleGPT natural-language search | Not offered |
| Screening (evaluation) | A judgement about ability, with evidence behind it | Not offered; search and sourcing only | Structured tests and assessments |
| Evidence | Something a rejected candidate or an auditor can be shown | None; you screen the candidates yourself | Test scores |
| Cost visibility | A number you can size before a sales call | Published | Published, EU/GDPR positioned |
Candidate sourcing is the outbound half of recruitment: searching for people who have not applied, checking them against the role, revealing contact details and opening the first conversation. Screening is the half after that — deciding which of the people in front of you is worth a hiring manager's hour. Tools in this category tend to be built for one half or the other, and a shortlist that mixes them up buys the same half twice.
Juicebox's published position on sourcing is: Included — PeopleGPT natural-language search. Maki's is: Not offered. On the interview side, Juicebox states: Not offered; search and sourcing only; Maki states: Structured tests and assessments. Where a row reads "not stated publicly", treat it as an absence of a public claim rather than as evidence the capability is missing — ask in the demo.
Choosing between them
- Pick Juicebox if your bottleneck matches its strength: Natural-language people search (PeopleGPT) that made AI sourcing accessible to small teams
- Pick Maki if your bottleneck matches its strength: Large skills-test library (150+) and science-based assessment approach
- If pricing visibility matters to your process, compare the two rows above before booking either demo — one of these vendors publishes a number and the other may not.
- Neither choice is permanent. The row that usually decides it is "evidence behind a score", because that is the one your hiring managers argue about 6 months in.
A third option: cover sourcing and interviewing in one pipeline
Most shortlists that include Juicebox and Maki are really choosing between two halves of the same problem — finding candidates and evaluating them. The Cognitive covers both: candidate sourcing across ~900M profiles with contact details enriched from 30+ sources, then a live, two-way AI video interview with a real face and voice. Every rating on the scorecard ties back to a quote and a timestamp, and it works inside the ATS you already run rather than replacing it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference between Juicebox and Maki?
Juicebox is AI recruiting platform (PeopleGPT natural-language people search). Maki is hiring intelligence end to end (AI agents, assessments; EU/GDPR angle).
Does Juicebox or Maki include candidate sourcing?
Juicebox: Included — PeopleGPT natural-language search. Maki: Not offered.
Which one publishes pricing?
Juicebox: Published. Maki: Published, EU/GDPR positioned.
Other comparisons
- Greenhouse vs Workday Recruiting: Which ATS Suits Your Team?
- Greenhouse vs Zoho Recruit: Which ATS Suits Your Team?
- hireEZ vs Apriora: Which Fits Your Hiring Stack?
- hireEZ vs Elly: Which Fits Your Hiring Stack?
- hireEZ vs Gem: Which Fits Your Hiring Stack?
- hireEZ vs InterviewFlowAI: Which Fits Your Hiring Stack?
Juicebox review · Maki review · Juicebox alternatives · Maki alternatives · Eightfold AI vs Juicebox · HireVue vs Juicebox · AI Recruiting Software Guide · Deep AI Interviews · Pricing