Paste both, and see the language the posting leans on that your resume never uses.
Before a person reads your resume, software decides whether a person ever will. That software isn’t clever and it isn’t trying to understand you — it is matching text against text.
This isn’t the sophisticated part of hiring. It is the part that quietly removes strong candidates who described the same work using different words, and it’s almost entirely avoidable once you can see it happening.
Paste a posting and your resume below. What comes back is the vocabulary the posting relies on that your resume doesn’t contain. Everything stays in your browser.
Both boxes stay in your browser. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is stored, nothing is sent — you can disconnect from the internet and this still works.
These come up more than once in the posting and not at all in your resume. Start here, and only where the claim is true.
Nothing in this group. The language the posting repeats is already in your resume.
Lower stakes. Worth a look, not worth contorting a bullet point over.
Nothing in this group.
No overlap found yet.
A missing word is a prompt, not an instruction. If you have genuinely done the thing, use their word for it — the person reading is scanning for their own vocabulary, not yours. If you have not done the thing, leave it out. Keyword stuffing survives the software and then fails in the first ten minutes of a conversation with a human being.
This is not an applicant tracking system and it can't see one. Real screening software also reads your formatting, your section headings, and your dates. What it can show you is the vocabulary gap, which is the part you can do something about today.
If the posting says stakeholder management and your resume says worked with partner teams, use theirs. You’re describing the same thing; only one version is searchable.
Keyword stuffing survives the software and fails the interview, badly. Every term on your resume is something you’re inviting a person to ask you about for twenty minutes.
Multi-column layouts, text inside images, headers and footers, and unusual section names all parse poorly. A plain single-column document with conventional headings loses nothing and survives everything.
The whole point is that the gap is different each time. Two postings for the same job title at different companies will lean on noticeably different vocabulary.
No, and it can’t see one. This compares two pieces of text you provide and shows you where the vocabulary diverges. Real screening software also weighs your formatting, your work history structure, dates, and criteria the employer has configured that no outside tool has access to.
Treat the output as a prompt to reconsider your wording, not as a score you’re trying to beat.
No. Both boxes are processed in your browser and nothing is transmitted anywhere — you can disconnect from the internet and the tool still works. Closing the tab discards it.
Not the whole thing. Keep one strong base resume and adjust the top third — your summary, your skills line and the bullets under your most recent role. That’s where most of the matching weight sits and it takes minutes rather than an evening.
Then you’ve got useful information about the gap, and it’s worth separating the two kinds. Missing a named tool is usually surmountable and worth applying anyway. Missing the core scope of the role — people management, budget ownership, a required credential — is a different matter.
Most postings list an ideal candidate who doesn’t exist. Missing a third of a wish list is normal.
Resume reviews are part of career coaching. Book a free call and bring the posting you’re aiming at.
Book a Free 1:1 Call