Applicant tracking systems don't read your résumé — they parse it. Upload yours and we'll show you exactly which fields and sections came out the other side, what breaks, and the full keyword report against any job. Free, no sign-up, and nothing is stored.
An ATS does not read a page — it extracts fields. It looks for a contact block, then splits the document at anything that looks like a section header, then matches the text it recovered against the words in the job posting. Everything that survives that pass is your résumé as far as the system is concerned. Everything that does not, is not there.
Our 17 templates are labelled honestly: the ones marked ATS-safe are single-column text flows that parse cleanly. The designed ones are beautiful for a human and say so.
You get the whole report, free: every matched keyword, every missing one, the weighted coverage, and the format findings with the fix for each. There is no blurred list and no upgrade button between you and the answer.
What it will not do is give you a match score when you have not given it a job. Without a posting there is nothing to match against, so it says format check instead. A number that claims to measure your fit against no job is theatre, and you would be right not to trust the rest of the report after seeing one.
No. The file is parsed in memory to produce this report and discarded — there's no account, no database row, and nothing written to disk.
Because without a job description there is nothing to match against. A number that claims to measure your fit against no job is theatre. Paste a job and the same engine gives you a real match with the full keyword list.
A deterministic engine: keyword extraction from the job post, weighted coverage against your résumé, and format rules (contact details, section headers, dates, bullets, columns, quantified results). No AI, no randomness — the same input always gives the same answer.
Only add the ones that are genuinely true of you. A résumé stuffed with words you can't back up fails at the interview instead of the filter — we'd rather you passed both.