Upload your resume and get its ATS score out of 100 in about 60 seconds, free, no signup, no credit card. SupaCV scores six dimensions the way Workday, Greenhouse and Lever parse them: keywords, formatting, completeness, quantification, readability and language quality.
Upload your resume and add your email. Your score and the biggest fixes appear right here.
Drop your resume
PDF or DOCX, max 5MB
Add your resume and your email to see your score.
We store your email and resume text to send your score and a few follow-ups, and delete both after 24 months. We never share your email. Read our privacy policy.
A score out of 100 in about 60 seconds, with the biggest issues explained.
Drop a PDF or DOCX file (max 5MB) into the checker.
The full score report is sent to your inbox, no account or credit card needed.
You get an ATS score out of 100, a category breakdown across keywords, formatting, completeness, quantification and readability, plus your two biggest issues explained in full.
The goal isn't to beat the ATS. It's to parse cleanly for the software and read clearly for the human, since both decide whether you get an interview.
An ATS is a tracking database, not an auto-reject robot. Recruiters use it to store applications, search them by keyword, and route candidates into a review queue. Most platforms score or sort; they don't reject anyone without a human ever opening the file.
What actually causes an instant, algorithmic rejection is usually a knockout question, not formatting: visa sponsorship, location or relocation, a required license or certification. If a company's ATS is set to require a specific answer to one of these before a resume is ever reviewed, no amount of clean formatting changes the outcome.
Formatting still matters, just not for the reason most advice claims. Tables, columns and graphics can genuinely garble how text gets extracted, and a resume the parser mangles is one the human reviewer never gets to read properly either. That's the real reason single-column, plain-text-first formatting works: it's the same resume, read the same way, by both. Read the full breakdown of where the 75% rejection stat actually came from.
The free check grades on the same three bands as the SupaCV dashboard, so a number here means exactly what it means in the product.
Your resume parses cleanly and reads well, and 75 is the same bar the SupaCV dashboard uses to call a resume strong. Past it, generic fixes stop being the bottleneck: the next lever is tailoring keywords and evidence to each specific job description, not more polish on the base resume.
The structure works, but real issues remain: typically missing keywords, thin quantification, or formatting that garbles how text gets extracted. Your report explains the two biggest issues in full. Fix those first and check again, rather than polishing everything at once.
Scores here are usually structural: the parser is losing whole sections, dates, or contact details, often because of tables, columns, or graphics. Rebuild on a single-column layout with standard section headings, then rescore before you touch any wording.
A score measures how cleanly you parse and how well you read. It is not a prediction of any one company's decision, and no checker can honestly promise interviews.
The checker scores your resume. These four pieces explain the decisions behind the fixes.
The paper trail behind the most-repeated stat in job search advice, and what actually causes instant rejection.
Read the article →The three formulas collapse into the same bullet in practice; what a strong bullet actually needs.
Read the article →Where the rule comes from, what recruiters say in practice, and a tiered way to think about length instead of a fixed cap.
Read the article →The patterns reviewers actually flag, and why the honest answer is AI as editor, not author.
Read the article →ATS stands for applicant tracking system: the software companies use to store, search, and rank the resumes they receive. Most don't auto-reject anyone; they parse your resume into a profile recruiters filter and search. SupaCV scores how cleanly your resume survives that parsing, and how it reads to the human afterwards.
Where the ATS rejection myth came from→SupaCV grades on three bands, the same ones the product dashboard uses: 75 or above is Strong, 50 to 74 is Getting there, and below 50 is Needs work. Strong means your resume parses cleanly and reads well, and per-role tailoring becomes the next lever. No score guarantees interviews; fit with each specific job still decides that.
Upload a PDF or DOCX, drop your email, and we return your ATS score out of 100, a category breakdown, the two biggest issues in full, plus a count of every other issue we found. No credit card.
We model our six score dimensions (keywords, formatting, completeness, quantification, readability, and language quality) on how major systems like Workday, Greenhouse and Lever parse resumes. It's a strong proxy for how cleanly you'll parse and how well you'll read, not a prediction of any one company's decision.
No. Anonymised data may contribute to peer benchmarks. Opt out in Settings. Your email is used only for the score result and our newsletter; unsubscribe any time.
Your score is step one. Fixing it, tailoring per role and tracking to offer is the rest of SupaCV.
Start free