Why Your Resume Gets Rejected by ATS (and the 8 Fixes That Work)
ATS systems reject 75% of resumes before a human sees them. Here's what actually happens inside applicant tracking software, the formatting traps that kill applications, and eight specific fixes.
Written by Alex · Developer & Founder
Solo developer based in Adelaide, Australia. Built MyEasyTools to make everyday file and text tasks faster and free for everyone.
Get more from MyEasyTools — No ads, higher limits, faster processing
I've reviewed a lot of resumes from people who were genuinely qualified for roles they didn't get interviews for. The most common pattern: excellent experience, formatted in a way that applicant tracking software partially or completely misread. The recruiter never saw the real thing.
Understanding how ATS systems work changes how you think about resume design. The goal isn't just to look good on screen — it's to produce clean, structured data when a parser reads it.
What ATS actually does
Applicant Tracking Software isn't just a keyword scanner, though that's the simplest mental model. When you submit an application, here's what happens:
- Parse — the system reads your document and attempts to extract structured fields: name, email, phone, work history (employer, title, dates, description), education, skills. This is the fragile step.
- Index — extracted content is stored in a searchable database. Recruiters search and filter this database, not your original document.
- Score — the system compares your extracted content to the job description, looking for keyword matches, title alignment, and years of experience. Weights vary by system and configuration.
- Rank — your application gets a score that determines where it appears in the recruiter's queue.
The key insight: if parsing fails in step one, everything downstream is broken. A recruiter searching for "project management" won't find your application if that phrase got mangled or lost during parsing. You could be the most qualified applicant and show up invisible.
The 2021 Harvard Business School report "Hidden Workers"{:target="_blank"} found that large employers (1,000+ employees) overwhelmingly rely on ATS-filtered pipelines, and that many qualified candidates are systematically excluded not because of skills gaps but because of how they submitted their applications.
The 8 formatting traps — and how to fix them
1. Headers and footers
The trap: Putting your name, contact information, or section labels inside the document's header/footer area (the repeated section at the top/bottom of each page in Word).
Why it fails: Many parsers skip headers and footers entirely or treat them as metadata rather than content. Your name and email may not be extracted.
The fix: Put all contact information in the main document body, not in a header element. Plain text at the top of the first page.
2. Multi-column layouts
The trap: Side-by-side columns — skills on the left, work history on the right, or two columns of bullet points.
Why it fails: Parsers typically read left-to-right, top-to-bottom across the full page width. In a two-column layout, the parser often reads the columns in the wrong order, interleaving text that belongs to separate sections. A two-column skills section becomes garbled text.
The fix: Single column, full width. It looks less "designed" but it parses reliably. If you want visual structure, use indentation and whitespace rather than columns.
3. Tables for layout
The trap: Using a Word table to align dates with job titles, or to create a grid of skills.
Why it fails: Similar to multi-column layouts. Parsers read tables cell-by-cell and frequently concatenate content from adjacent cells, breaking date detection and sentence structure.
The fix: Use left-aligned text with tab stops for simple alignment. Use bullet lists for skills rather than tables.
4. Text boxes and text frames
The trap: Putting content (often a sidebar summary, skills section, or contact details) inside a text box or floating text frame.
Why it fails: Text boxes are treated as embedded objects by many parsers — their content is either skipped entirely or extracted out of order.
The fix: Remove all text boxes. Move their content into the main text flow. If your template uses them, rebuild from scratch rather than deleting the box and manually moving content.
5. Icons, graphics, and image-based content
The trap: Using icons next to section headers, progress bars to show skill levels, or profile photos. Some templates render entire sections as images.
Why it fails: Images are invisible to text parsers. A skills section represented as five star icons reads as blank.
The fix: Remove graphics entirely. Skill levels are better communicated with text ("Proficient in Python, 4 years' experience") than visual indicators that get dropped.
6. Non-standard section names
The trap: Creative section titles: "My Journey", "What I've Built", "Where I've Studied", "Things I Know".
Why it fails: ATS systems look for specific keywords to identify sections: "Experience", "Education", "Skills", "Certifications". Non-standard labels may cause content to be attributed to the wrong field or not parsed into any structured field at all.
The fix: Use conventional section names. "Work Experience" or "Professional Experience" for jobs. "Education" for degrees. "Skills" or "Technical Skills" for competencies. Boring is better here.
7. Unconventional fonts and special characters
The trap: Using ligature-heavy or decorative fonts, bullet points as Unicode symbols (✦ ◆ →), or non-standard apostrophes and quote marks.
Why it fails: Some parsers strip non-ASCII characters or misread them. A bullet point rendered as a Unicode dingbat may be parsed as a garbled character or dropped. Stylised apostrophes (' vs ') can cause word-matching to fail.
The fix: Standard fonts (Arial, Calibri, Cambria, Georgia, Times New Roman). Standard bullet points (•). Straight apostrophes. When in doubt, paste into Notepad or TextEdit and see what survives.
8. Keyword stuffing and absence
The trap (absence): Not including the exact terminology from the job description. Using "supervised" when the posting says "managed". Using "financial modelling" when the posting says "financial modeling" (US spelling).
The trap (stuffing): Including keywords in an invisible white text block, or listing irrelevant terms hoping to trigger matches.
The fix for absence: Read the job description carefully. Mirror the exact phrasing where it accurately describes your experience. If the posting says "Agile methodology" and you've worked in Agile, say "Agile methodology" — not just "Agile". Include both spelled-out and abbreviated versions where relevant: "Search Engine Optimisation (SEO)".
The fix for stuffing: Don't. Modern ATS systems, and the humans who use them, recognise keyword padding. It may boost your score briefly but damages trust when a recruiter reads the document.
File format: PDF vs DOCX
This question comes up constantly, and the honest answer is: it depends, but with a clear hierarchy.
Always follow the employer's instructions if they specify a format. If they say DOCX, send DOCX. If they say PDF, send PDF.
If unspecified:
- DOCX is more universally supported, especially by older enterprise ATS systems. Workday and SuccessFactors in particular have historically parsed DOCX more reliably.
- PDF keeps your formatting consistent across devices and is well-supported by modern systems (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby). The risk is PDF files exported from design tools where text is actually an image layer — these parse as blank.
A text-based PDF exported directly from Word ("Save As PDF" or "Export to PDF") is fine for modern systems. A PDF exported from Canva, Adobe InDesign, or similar design tools — test it by selecting and copying text. If you can't select the text, the parser can't read it either.
For most applications, I'd default to DOCX unless you have a reason to prefer PDF.
Keyword optimisation without gaming
The most effective keyword approach is also the most honest one: read the job description carefully, identify the specific terms they use, and reflect them accurately where they apply to your experience.
Three practical steps:
1. Compare your resume to the posting. Paste both into a text editor. Look for terms in the posting that are absent from your resume but accurately describe your experience. Add them.
2. Include both variants. "Javascript" and "JavaScript". "SEO" and "Search Engine Optimisation". Degree abbreviations and full names: "MBA (Master of Business Administration)". ATS systems aren't always case-insensitive or acronym-aware.
3. Put keywords in context. "Experienced with Salesforce" in a bullet point is less effective than "Managed a pipeline of 200+ accounts in Salesforce CRM, reducing follow-up time by 30%." The context signals genuine experience; the isolated term doesn't.
The underlying principle: your resume is being parsed into a database, not read by a person on the first pass. Write it so the database entry is accurate, and the human reading it later finds the same content.
A note on template sites
Canva, Resume.io, Kickresume, and similar sites produce beautiful templates. The formatting traps above — text boxes, columns, decorative fonts, image-based graphics — are present in the majority of their popular designs. This doesn't mean you can't use them; it means you need to evaluate each template specifically.
Before using any template for a job you genuinely want, test the parser: upload it to Jobscan or another ATS simulation tool and see what gets extracted. Alternatively, use our resume builder which generates clean, single-column, ATS-safe output from structured input.
The goal of the design should be: readable by a human at a glance, and reliably parseable by software. Those constraints are compatible. Clean typography, good whitespace, and logical section order satisfy both.
- ATS parses your resume into structured data before a human sees it — if parsing fails, your qualifications don't matter
- Headers/footers, columns, tables, text boxes, and image-based content are the most common causes of parsing failure
- Single-column, plain-text layouts with conventional section names parse reliably across all ATS systems
- File format: follow instructions if given; otherwise DOCX for broad compatibility, text-based PDF for modern systems
- Keyword match accuracy matters — mirror the job description's exact terminology where it genuinely reflects your experience
- Test any unfamiliar template by uploading it to an ATS simulator before using it for real applications
FAQ
What percentage of resumes are rejected by ATS before a human sees them?
Research from Harvard Business School's 2021 "Hidden Workers" report found that large employers overwhelmingly rely on ATS-filtered pipelines, with estimates around 75% of resumes filtered out before reaching a recruiter. Many of those rejections are due to formatting issues rather than lack of qualifications — a qualified candidate with a poorly parsed resume may never reach the recruiter's queue.
Does ATS actually read my resume or just scan for keywords?
Both. Modern ATS systems parse your resume into structured fields (work history, education, skills, contact information) and then score that extracted content against the job description. If parsing fails — because of text boxes, columns, or image-based content — the score is based on empty or garbled fields regardless of your actual qualifications.
Should I submit my resume as PDF or Word (.docx)?
Follow the employer's instructions if specified. If not: DOCX is more universally supported by older systems. Text-based PDFs (exported from Word, not from design tools) are fine for modern ATS. The critical mistake is submitting a PDF from Canva or InDesign where text is actually an image layer — those parse as completely blank.
Do ATS systems penalise for using tables and columns?
Many do, particularly older systems. Multi-column layouts cause parsers to read content in the wrong order, breaking date detection and sentence structure. Single-column layouts are reliably parsed across all systems. Since you typically can't know which ATS a company uses, single-column is the safest choice.
What's the best free tool for checking if my resume will pass ATS?
Jobscan is the most thorough option for paid analysis against a specific job description. For a free approach: use our resume builder which generates clean ATS-safe formatting from the start, or copy your resume into a plain text editor and read through it — anything that looks garbled or missing signals a parsing problem.