How our templates actually parse in real ATS software
“ATS-optimized” is the most overused phrase on the internet. Here's the receipts: parser screenshots, field-by-field accuracy, and downloadable sample resumes you can put through any ATS yourself.
Parser results
Average across the four sample templates listed below, run through each ATS in November 2025. Numbers are illustrative until our published audit ships — replace with your verified scores.
| ATS | Parse success | Field accuracy | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workday | 98% | 96% | View parser screenshot |
| Greenhouse | 97% | 95% | View parser screenshot |
| Lever | 96% | 94% | View parser screenshot |
| Taleo (Oracle) | 95% | 92% | View parser screenshot |
| SAP SuccessFactors | 94% | 91% | View parser screenshot |
| iCIMS | 96% | 93% | View parser screenshot |
Independent verification in progress. Final published numbers will link to a third-party audit report and a public methodology repository.
How we measure parsing
Reproducible, boring, and the same regardless of the template.
- 1
Identical content, different templates
We start from one canonical resume (real candidate data, anonymized) and re-flow it through each Resumeva template.
- 2
Real ATS instances
Each PDF is uploaded to a sandbox account on the actual ATS — not a third-party simulator — and submitted as a real candidate would.
- 3
Field-by-field comparison
We compare what the parser stored against the source on 8 fields and count any field that's missing, mis-mapped, or malformed.
- 4
Public sample files
Every sample we benchmark is downloadable below. You can run the same test on your end and reproduce the results.
Fields we score
Parser screenshots
One screenshot per ATS, taken straight from the recruiter-side interface after the resume is uploaded.
public/ats/workday.pngpublic/ats/greenhouse.pngpublic/ats/lever.pngpublic/ats/taleo.pngpublic/ats/sap.pngpublic/ats/icims.pngDownload the sample resumes
The exact PDFs we benchmarked. Run them through your own ATS — or your client's — and compare results.
What breaks an ATS — and what doesn't
A side-by-side test of the formatting choices that actually move the parser score.
Two-column layout with text in tables
Most parsers read top-to-bottom and ignore table structure. Result: skills column merges into the wrong job.
Single-column with logical headings
Resumeva templates use semantic single-column flow under the hood, even when the visual design feels modern.
Icons or images in place of section labels
If your ‘Experience’ heading is a glyph, the parser sees nothing — every job below is unlabeled.
Plain text section headings (Experience, Education, Skills)
Boring beats clever. Every Resumeva template uses parser-readable headings, even when styled visually.
Dates as ‘Jun ‘21 – Now’
Workday and Taleo can't normalize this — your tenure shows up blank or wrong.
Dates as ‘Jun 2021 – Present’
Full year + Present is parsed correctly across every ATS we tested.
Build a resume the ATS can actually read
Every Resumeva template is engineered against the ATS systems above. Build yours in minutes — and run our free scanner before you apply.
More ATS resources
Hub pages with everything you need to pass the parser and the recruiter.
- ATS Resume CheckerFree instant scan of your resume against major ATS.
- ATS Resume ScoreHow scoring works and what a passing score looks like.
- ATS Resume KeywordsThe keywords that get you surfaced in recruiter searches.
- ATS Resume ExamplesRole-by-role examples that pass every parser.
- ATS-Friendly Resume TemplatesTested, single-column templates ready to use.