ATS Test
Test Your Resume Against an ATS
Most candidates have no idea what an ATS actually sees. Test your resume here: upload it, and we run it through the same parse engines that Workday, Greenhouse, and iCIMS use. You see what got extracted, what got dropped, and the exact issues that would have flagged it as low-quality at a real employer.
Everything this feature does. Built for signal, not noise.
See the parsed output
We show you the structured JSON the ATS would extract — name, contact, work history, education, skills. If something's missing, that's what the recruiter sees too.
Parse-failure log
Every dropped section, every misread date, every garbled bullet — listed by severity, with the specific cause.
Section-by-section score
Header, summary, work history, education, skills — each scored separately so you can see exactly which section is dragging the total down.
Multi-vendor parity
We run the same upload through multiple parser implementations. If they disagree, that's a sign your resume's formatting is fragile across employers.
Specific fixes per failure
Not 'improve formatting' — actual instructions like 'remove the 2-column layout starting on line 18' or 'replace the header logo image with text.'
Free retests
Fix and re-test until the score is where you want it. Free tier covers active iteration cycles.
How it works. Three steps to results.
Upload the file
Same PDF or DOCX you'd send to an employer. We parse it as-is — no preprocessing, no formatting fixes.
Compare the parse to your real resume
Look at the structured output side-by-side with the original. Anything in your resume that's missing here is invisible to the ATS.
Fix and re-upload
Address the failure log, re-upload, watch the score climb. Most resumes go from a 50–70 to 85+ in two iterations.
Frequently asked questions. Everything you need to know.
Word checks spelling and grammar. We check whether the resume parses into structured data the way an ATS would. Different problem entirely — a resume can be perfectly written and still get rejected because the ATS can't extract your work history.
Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, iCIMS, Taleo, Bullhorn, JobDiva, and SmartRecruiters cover the vast majority of US/Canada/UK postings. Our parse mirrors how those engines extract resumes.
Then your problem is content (the resume parses correctly but doesn't match the role) or volume (you're not applying to enough relevant roles). Run the resume against a specific job description on the resume-checker-with-job-description page to see if it's a content issue.
PDF is safer for most modern ATS systems if it's text-based (not a scan). Some older systems still prefer DOCX. Our test runs both — you'll see if your file behaves differently across them.
80+ is competitive. 90+ means almost no parse issues. Below 60 typically means a structural problem (tables, columns, wrong file type) and warrants a rewrite, not a tweak.
Yes for English, French, Spanish, German, and Portuguese resumes. Other languages parse but the keyword analysis is less reliable.
Explore more. Features that pair well with this one.
Free ATS Checker
Same engine, focused on the 0–100 score.
Learn moreIs My Resume ATS-Friendly?
Checklist version — quick yes/no answers.
Learn moreResume Checker With JD
Add a job description to score against a specific posting.
Learn moreATS Resume Checker (Live Tool)
Open the live tool with the full report UI.
Learn moreTailor Resume to JD
After the test passes, tailor for a specific role.
Learn more