Free · No signup · ~30 seconds
Find out why you’d be rejected, before you apply.
Most advice about the ATS is wrong. We researched how Workday, Greenhouse and Taleo actually screen you, then built a check around what we found: whether the software can read you, whether a recruiter can find you, and whether you clear the bars no rewrite can fix.
Your resume is never shared. Delete everything with one click.
- 39% of large employers use Workday, which scores and ranks you
- 13% use Greenhouse, which does not auto-score at all
- 0 real ATS shows a candidate their match score
Biggest gap
TypeScript is a must-have and your resume does not evidence it
A learning gap, not a wording gap. We will not write it in for you.
The part nobody explains
You were probably never rejected. You were never found.
The story everyone repeats is that a robot scores your resume and bins 75% of them. That number comes from an unsourced 2012 sales pitch. Here is what the research actually shows.
The parser reads you first, and it is dumber than you think
Workday reads a two-column layout left to right, across both columns, as one line. Your skills section built as a table can vanish entirely. When that happens the recruiter does not reject you. You simply never appear in their search.
Scoring exists, but only on some platforms
Workday scores and ranks applicants automatically, and it is used by about 39% of large employers. Greenhouse, at around 13%, does not auto-score at all and relies on recruiter scorecards. iCIMS matches on a skills taxonomy. Which advice applies depends entirely on where you are applying.
The real auto-rejection is the form, not the resume
Knockout questions reject you automatically: work authorisation, location, minimum years of experience. They run on the answers you type, not on your resume. No amount of keyword tuning changes them.
Nobody can compute your real ATS score, including us
An ATS ranks you against everyone else who applied for that role that day. A percentage is meaningless without knowing that pool, and no outside tool can see it. Every ATS score on the internet is a number the checker invented. So we score what can actually be measured.
How we score
A perfect resume that cannot be read is still invisible.
ATS Readiness
Can the software read you? Ten deterministic checks: text layer, column layout, extractable titles and dates, readable skills. No AI involved, so this number never moves. We show you exactly what the parser pulled out of your file, so you can check it against your own resume.
Recruiter Relevance
Would a recruiter shortlist you? Keyword match against this specific JD, whether your top third survives a seven second scan, and whether you clear the hard requirements. This is the human side of the screen.
Most tools give you one number and call it an ATS score. These are two different questions, and mixing them is why the advice you have been given contradicts itself.
How it works
Three steps, about thirty seconds
No account until you want the full report. The scan itself never asks you to sign in.
Paste the job description
From LinkedIn, Naukri, anywhere. We pull out what the role actually requires, including the hard requirements buried at the bottom.
Senior Frontend Engineer, React, TypeScript, 4+ years, Bengaluru (hybrid)...
Upload your resume
PDF, as it is. No reformatting, no rewriting, no account.
Read the verdict
A score out of 100 with the reasoning behind each part, the gaps ranked by what they cost you, and a plain statement when tailoring cannot close the distance.
Surfaceable · we rewrite your own line
“built REST APIs in Node”
Lead with the skill so a recruiter search finds it.
Missing · we write nothing
TypeScript is not in your resume. That is a learning gap.
Who it's for
Built from real interviews, not personas we invented
Four job seekers, one script, and the pain none of them expected to name.
“I apply to 15 a day and tailor none of them.”
You're not lazy, it's arithmetic: thirty minutes on one application costs you ten others. TailorCheck takes thirty seconds, so the top ten roles get the attention and the rest get a fast verdict.
“I ask ChatGPT for a score and get a different number every time.”
80, then 74, then 82. For the same resume. You end up negotiating with a chatbot until it agrees with you. Ours moves by at most 5 points across repeat runs of the same resume and job, and we publish that number.
“I applied 300 times and never found out why I was rejected.”
Nobody tells you. TailorCheck tells you before you spend the evening: what's missing, what's fixable, and when the answer is simply that this role wasn't winnable.
The honest comparison
ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini can all do this. Here is what happens when they do.
We are not going to pretend a chatbot cannot read a job description. It can. The difference is what you get back, and whether you can trust it twice.
Every number in our column is measured and published. See how we measured it
The honesty section
Two things we won't do
We won’t invent experience for you.
Every suggestion we make points at a line already in your resume. If a skill isn’t there, we say it’s missing and leave your resume alone. Our database physically rejects a suggestion that can’t cite its source.
We won’t tell you a bad fit is a good one.
When a job asks for five years and you have four, no amount of keyword tuning fixes that. We say so, and you get your evening back.
Questions
The ones worth answering honestly
Does an ATS really reject most resumes automatically?
Mostly no. The "75% get auto-rejected" figure traces to an unsourced 2012 sales pitch. What does reject you automatically are knockout questions: work authorisation, location, minimum years. Those run on the answers you type into the form, not on your resume. We check those separately, and tell you when one of them makes a role unwinnable.
So do companies score my resume or not?
Some do, and it depends on the platform. Workday scores and ranks applicants automatically and is used by roughly 39% of large employers. Greenhouse, at around 13%, does not auto-score at all and relies on recruiter scorecards. iCIMS scores with skills-taxonomy matching. So the honest answer is that it depends on where you are applying.
Then why don't you give me an ATS match score?
Because a real one cannot be computed from outside. An ATS ranks you against everyone else who applied for that role that day, so a percentage means nothing without the applicant pool, which no outside tool can see. Every "ATS score" on the internet, including ours if we invented one, is a number the checker made up. We score what we can measure honestly instead.
What does your ATS Readiness score measure?
Whether the software can read your resume at all. Ten deterministic checks: is there a text layer, is the layout single column, are your titles and dates extractable, is the skills section readable. Workday reads two-column layouts left to right across both columns, which scrambles your content, and the recruiter never sees you in their search. We show you exactly what the parser extracted so you can check it yourself.
Does my score change if I run it again?
A little, and we measure how much: across repeat runs of the same resume and job, the score moves by at most 5 points. The model only reads and lists; the scoring itself is arithmetic. Ask a chatbot for a score three times and you get three answers, because you are asking a text generator for a number. The measurement, including where it misses our own target, is on the evals page.
What happens to my resume?
Stored privately, never shared, never sold, never used to train anything. One click deletes it everywhere, including our analytics records, and the deletion is logged so we can prove it happened.
Why you can check our work
Our numbers, and where to verify them
0
fabricated suggestions across our eval set. If a skill is not in your resume, we name it as missing and leave your resume alone.
0 of 5
prompt injection attempts contained, including zero width and homoglyph payloads.
Published
score variance, not promised. We show you our measured numbers on the evals page, including where we miss our own target.