We've analyzed 954 resumes through our ATS simulator since launch. Every one was scored on ATS compatibility, formatting, keyword usage, and content quality. We tracked every issue found — 5,306 of them in total.
Here's what the data actually says about why resumes underperform, and it's not what most resume advice focuses on.
The Big Picture: How Do Most Resumes Score?
The average ATS compatibility score across all 954 resumes was 82 out of 100. That sounds decent — and honestly, most resumes are structurally fine. Here's the full distribution:
- 90-100 (Excellent): 7% of resumes
- 75-89 (Good): 74% of resumes
- 60-74 (Needs work): 16% of resumes
- Below 60 (High risk): 3% of resumes
The #1 Issue: Weak Impact Statements
This is the finding that surprised us most.
Out of 5,306 total issues found across 954 resumes, 33% were impact-related. That's 1,751 issues — more than formatting, more than keywords, more than everything else.
What does "impact" mean? It means your bullet points describe what you did, but not what happened because of it. They describe tasks, not results.
Here's what we see over and over:
What most people write: "Managed social media accounts for the marketing department"
What actually gets interviews: "Grew company social media following by 47% in 6 months, generating 2,300 qualified leads through organic content"
The first version tells a recruiter you had a job. The second tells them you're good at it. ATS systems don't care about this distinction — but the recruiter who reads your resume after it passes the ATS absolutely does.
The average Impact sub-score across all resumes was just 71 out of 100 — the lowest of any category we measure. For comparison:
- Parseability: 87/100 (most resumes are structurally readable)
- Formatting: 80/100 (decent, some issues)
- Keywords: 79/100 (room for improvement)
- Impact: 71/100 (the weak point for most people)
The Full Issue Breakdown
Here's every category of issue we found, ranked by frequency:
1. Impact Issues — 33% of All Issues
The biggest category by far. These are bullet points that describe responsibilities instead of achievements. The pattern is always the same: "Responsible for X" or "Managed Y" without any indication of results, metrics, or outcomes.
The fix is straightforward but requires effort: go through every bullet point and ask "so what?" If the bullet doesn't answer that question with a number, a percentage, a dollar amount, or a concrete outcome, rewrite it.
2. Keyword Gaps — 24% of All Issues
The second most common problem. Nearly a quarter of all issues we found were missing keywords — skills, tools, certifications, or industry terms that should appear on the resume but don't.
This is especially relevant for people who used our job description matching feature. Out of the 380 people who compared their resume against a specific job posting, the average match score was 73% — meaning the typical resume is missing about a quarter of the keywords from the job they're applying to.
The most common gaps are specific tool names (people write "data visualization" instead of "Tableau"), methodology terms (people write "organized work" instead of "Agile/Scrum"), and certification abbreviations.
3. Formatting Problems — 21% of All Issues
Formatting accounted for 1 in 5 issues. This includes multi-column layouts that break ATS parsing, tables and text boxes that hide content, non-standard section headers, and fancy templates that prioritize aesthetics over readability.
The good news: formatting is the easiest category to fix. Switch to a single-column layout, use standard section headers, and remove graphics. You can fix every formatting issue in 20 minutes.
4. Contact Information — 7% of All Issues
384 issues related to contact info — that's roughly 1 in every 2.5 resumes having a problem with how their name, email, phone number, or LinkedIn URL is presented. The most common problem: contact details buried in document headers that ATS systems skip entirely.
5. Bullet Point Structure — 7% of All Issues
Separate from impact, these are structural issues with bullet points: bullets that are too long (3+ lines), bullets that are too vague, bullets that start with weak verbs like "helped" or "assisted," and inconsistent formatting between bullet points.
6. Everything Else — 8% of All Issues
The remaining issues include grammar and spelling (2%), resume length problems (2%), general ATS compatibility issues (3%), and miscellaneous formatting concerns (1%).
What the "Good" Resumes Do Differently
Only 7% of resumes scored 90 or above. What sets them apart isn't one big thing — it's consistency across every category:
They quantify everything. High-scoring resumes don't just say they "improved" something. They say by how much, over what timeframe, affecting how many people or dollars. Every bullet has a number.
They mirror job description language. High scorers are clearly tailoring their resumes per application. The keyword match rates are significantly higher, which means they're reading job postings carefully and adjusting their language.
They keep it simple. The best-scoring resumes almost never use multi-column layouts, graphics, or creative templates. They use clean, single-column formats with standard section headers. The content does the heavy lifting, not the design.
They front-load impact. Instead of burying achievements at the end of a bullet point, high-scoring resumes lead with the result: "Increased revenue by $2.4M" comes first, then the context.
What This Means for Your Resume
If your resume scores in the 75-89 range (where 74% of resumes land), you're probably fine on the structural stuff. Your resume parses correctly, your sections are labeled properly, and the ATS can extract your information.
But you're likely leaving interviews on the table because of weak impact statements and keyword gaps. These are the issues that separate a resume that clears the ATS filter from one that makes a recruiter actually want to call you.
Here's a practical prioritization:
Fix first: Impact. Go through every bullet point. Add numbers, percentages, dollar amounts, team sizes, timeframes. If you can't quantify something, at least describe the outcome: "which led to..." or "resulting in..."
Fix second: Keywords. Read the job description for every role you apply to. Match the exact terminology. If they say "Kubernetes," don't write "container orchestration." If they say "stakeholder management," use that exact phrase.
Fix third: Formatting. If you're using a multi-column template or a design-heavy layout, switch to a clean single-column format. It takes 20 minutes and removes an entire category of risk.
Check Your Own Resume
These are aggregate findings across 954 resumes. Your specific resume might have completely different issues — or it might be in that 7% that scores above 90.
The only way to know is to check. Upload your resume and see exactly where you stand: what's parsing correctly, what keywords you're missing, and which bullet points need stronger impact statements. It takes 10 seconds and it's free.