In an era where automation drives much of the hiring process, a new experiment reveals an unsettling truth: most resume builders are failing to create documents that applicant tracking systems (ATS) can fully read and process. This insight came from a recent Reddit experiment where a user tested how well different resume builders performed when their output was uploaded into Workday, one of the most widely used ATS platforms.
The Resume Parsing Problem
The Reddit user created one resume and then formatted it using a variety of popular resume builders. Each version was uploaded into Workday to see how much information the ATS could actually parse—or extract and understand—automatically. The results were eye-opening.
The best-performing resume builder in the test was Resi Standard, which only achieved a 58% parsing success rate. Canva’s resume builder, a widely used design-focused tool, scored the worst with a dismal 13%. Even a manually created resume using Google Docs landed at just 34%.
What This Means for Job Seekers
These results highlight a major disconnect between aesthetically pleasing resumes and functional resumes optimized for ATS software. If an ATS cannot correctly interpret the content of a resume—such as job titles, dates, and skills—then a candidate’s information may never make it to a human recruiter, no matter how qualified they are.
In short, job seekers using common resume builders may be unknowingly sabotaging their own chances by submitting documents that are unreadable to the very systems designed to filter applicants.
Why Are Resume Builders Failing?
The core issue appears to be formatting. Many resume builders use graphic-heavy layouts, tables, columns, and custom fonts that confuse ATS software. These tools are often built for visual appeal, not technical compatibility. Unfortunately, hiring software is more concerned with clean, structured data than how visually attractive a resume looks.
What Can You Do Instead?
If you're applying to jobs through online portals that use ATS (and most large companies do), it’s safer to stick with minimalist formatting. Tools like Microsoft Word or Google Docs—when used without complex design elements—are often better suited for ATS parsing. Additionally, using plain fonts, avoiding columns, and structuring your resume with clearly labeled sections (e.g., “Experience,” “Skills,” “Education”) can improve your chances.
Final Thoughts
The experiment serves as a stark reminder that while resume builders promise convenience and design, they may not be optimized for the systems that truly matter in today’s hiring landscape. Until resume builders start focusing more on ATS compatibility, job seekers should proceed with caution and consider creating resumes manually—or using tools proven to work with ATS—to improve their visibility in the job market.