A number you can actually trust.
Most résumé tools ask you to take their score on faith. We built ours so you do not have to. The engine is deterministic, the after-score is the real thing re-checked, every rule is sourced, and we are honest about the one thing we cannot do. Here is exactly how each of those holds up.
The same résumé always scores the same.
The scoring path uses no randomness and no clock. Feed in the same text and you get a byte-identical score every time, with the same findings in the same order. The seeded sample resume reproduces its exact per-platform scores as a golden test, and a clean resume is checked to score in a known band. That is what lets us stand behind a number instead of hand-waving at a range.
The after-score is a real re-audit, not a promise.
When we show you a projected score for the rewritten résumé, that number is not an estimate of the fix. We rewrite the actual text, then run the finished text back through the exact same audit and report what it scores. The two are asserted equal in our tests: the projected average must match a fresh re-audit of the delivered text, and no issue we claimed to fix is allowed to still be present in what you receive.
Every rule is evidence-cited, per platform.
The engine does not guess how a screener behaves. Each platform's rules come from a documented research corpus: official vendor documentation, parser-vendor engineering posts, and recruiter community reports. Each load-bearing claim carries a confidence tier and names its source, so you can separate what is well-established from what is weaker or inferred. We show our work rather than asserting a number.
These are modeled estimates, not a live verdict.
We model how each of the six systems is documented to parse and rank a résumé. We do not connect to those systems and we do not submit your résumé to them, so a score is an estimate of how a résumé is likely to be read, never a measurement taken from the live platform. Real results vary with each employer's configuration and the version they run. A score is never a verdict, and never a guarantee of an interview or a job.
Six systems, read one résumé at a time.
Every applicant tracking system reads a résumé its own way. We score yours against six of the most widely deployed, so you can see which one is holding you back and fix that one first. Each name below links to the playbook that documents how it parses and ranks, with sources.
Base search is exact string match. "SQL" ≠ "Structured Query Language".
WorkdaySkills Cloud semantic matching, but exact phrases from the JD still rank highest.
LeverWord stemming works (collaborate/collaboration). Abbreviations don't expand.
iCIMSSemantic; infers skills from context. Penalizes keyword stuffing.
TaleoExact string only. No stemming, no synonyms. "managed projects" ≠ "project management".
SmartRecruitersMost modern parser of the six. Synonym + taxonomy matching, not exact.
The one line to hold onto
These are modeled estimates. We don't run your résumé through the live ATS, and a score is never a guarantee of an interview or job.
Want the detail behind each answer? Read the FAQ, the screener playbooks, or our full disclaimer.
FirstRound is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Greenhouse, Workday, Lever, iCIMS, Taleo, SmartRecruiters, or any other applicant tracking system. Product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners and are used only to identify the systems FirstRound models.