Free Resume Tool
Run ATS risk scoring, detect parser failures early, and prioritize fixes that improve screening pass rates.
Upload resume
Upload your resume
Drag a file here or choose it from your device.
PDF, DOC, DOCX · Up to 10MB · 6 pages maximum
Basic runs text-based checks only. AI adds a written review when a provider is available; results always name the provider actually used.
If you already analyzed a file on the homepage, this tool reuses that result automatically.
Once your resume is processed, this page will show the focused workflow for this tool.
Supported formats: PDF, DOC, DOCX · Max 10MB
How it works
Upload your resume to review extracted text, section structure and formatting risks. Get practical fixes with our own ATS readability checks.
Analyze your uploaded resume, then run the focused text check. Open the recovered-text preview and review section evidence, contact details and readable wording. The checker does not inspect the original page geometry or reproduce an employer ATS. Review the exported file visually as well as checking its extracted text.
ATS-friendly resumes are usually easier to parse, clearly sectioned, and direct about skills, titles, and achievements. They avoid layouts that hide important content, vague headings that confuse parsers, and formatting choices that make information harder to classify correctly.
If the parser reads the resume poorly, the rest of the application can start from bad data. Missing job titles, collapsed bullet points, or buried skills can make a qualified candidate look less relevant than they really are. Early checks help prevent those avoidable losses.
Treat ATS risk as a diagnostic layer, not a hiring prediction. The output helps you fix structure, readability, and keyword placement so the resume has a better chance of being understood correctly during screening.
Multi-column layouts are the most common cause of scrambled output, because a parser reading left to right can interleave two unrelated columns into one line. Text boxes and graphics are frequently skipped entirely, and contact details placed in a page header or footer are often dropped, which can leave a record with no way to reach you. A single-column order with real text is the safest structure.
A text-based PDF exported from a word processor usually extracts cleanly. A scanned or image-only PDF contains no selectable text at all, so without optical character recognition there is nothing for a parser to read. DOCX is generally the most predictable format for older systems. If you cannot select the text in your own file, a parser cannot either.
Parsers map your content to fields by matching familiar headings. Conventional labels such as Experience, Education, and Skills classify reliably, while creative alternatives like "Where I have made an impact" often do not. Consistent date formats matter for the same reason: mixed styles across roles can place your history in the wrong order.
No. Real ATS systems vary by employer, and hiring outcomes still depend on role fit, competition, and recruiter judgment. The checker helps reduce obvious technical and structural issues.
Either works when the file contains selectable text. DOCX tends to behave most predictably in older systems, while a text-based PDF preserves your layout more faithfully. The choice that actually matters is avoiding scanned or image-only files, which carry no readable text.
Not always, but they carry the highest risk. Some modern parsers handle columns correctly and others flatten them into interleaved lines. If you are applying widely and cannot test each employer's system, a single-column layout removes the variable entirely.
A score is a prioritisation aid, not a grade. It tells you which issues to fix first. Chasing a perfect number by stuffing keywords usually produces writing that reads poorly to the human who makes the actual decision.
Start with section labels, file cleanliness, top-skill visibility, and the first experience bullets. Those areas often create the biggest gains in parser readability and role recognition.