Tech Job Search Tools
built by an ex-Google Recruiter

Yes, completely free. No signup, no credit card, no email gate. I get this question all the time, and honestly, I get it: most "free" tools online are bait for an email list or a paid trial. These aren't.

Here's the deal: I link to my paid resume writing service from each tool. That's the entire pitch. If the diagnosis points to your resume being the broken stage, I'd rather rewrite it for you than have you keep guessing on your own. But if you only want the free tools? Use them. Most people do.

No, and I want to be specific about this because most tools are vague when you ask.

Your file gets sent to my server, the text gets parsed in memory, the analysis runs, and the result comes back to your browser. The file never hits a database. Never gets written to disk. Never gets saved or logged. By the time you see your result, the file is already gone from the server.

Each upload is a fresh run. I don't have a way to retrieve what you uploaded yesterday. I don't have a "user history." That's by design.

Depends what's actually broken. And that's the question most people skip: they assume it's the resume, but it isn't always.

If you're sending applications and hearing nothing, start with the Application Funnel Calculator. Plug in your numbers (apps sent, recruiter screens, onsites, offers), and it'll tell you which stage of the funnel is below the benchmark for your role. That's where your problem actually is.

If the funnel says your resume is the issue, then run the ATS Checker (does it parse?) and the Recruiter Screen Simulator (would a recruiter actually read it for more than 6 seconds?).

Funnel-first matters because if your real problem is the recruiter pitch and you spend 3 weeks rewriting your resume, you've fixed the wrong thing. (More on diagnosing the right stage in the job search FAQ.)

Two things, basically.

One: I've actually done this work. 14 years recruiting tech, many of them at Google. The benchmarks behind the funnel calculator aren't scraped from job boards or guessed at. They're what I see when I screen resumes, what peer recruiters tell me, and what shows up in real placements.

Two: the tools won't lie to you. The ATS Checker won't say you're a "95% match" for jobs you're not. The funnel calculator won't promise you an offer in 4 weeks. And if the diagnosis is that your resume is fine and the recruiter pitch is the problem? That's what it'll tell you. Even though that means you might not need my paid service.

That's deliberate. A tool that flatters you isn't useful.

Yes, mostly.

The ATS Checker and Recruiter Screen Simulator work for any white-collar role. ATS parsing doesn't care if you're a software engineer or a marketing lead. The structure check is the same.

The Application Funnel Calculator is more nuanced. It's currently calibrated for 9 role families across tech (engineering, product, data, design, PM, DevOps, security, ML, and recruiting itself), with benchmarks from junior up to director. If your role is in tech, you're covered.

If your role is fully outside tech (sales at a non-tech company, finance, traditional ops), the funnel benchmarks won't be accurate, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The resume tools still work. The funnel one, less so.

No. And don't trust any tool that claims it will.

Here's the thing about ATS: there isn't one. There are dozens (Greenhouse, Workday, Lever, Taleo, iCIMS, and on and on), and they each parse resumes a little differently. Anyone selling you "ATS-proof" guarantees is either lying or doesn't understand the space.

What the ATS Checker actually does: confirms your resume is structurally parseable, the standard sections are detected, and your keywords are findable. That's the technical step, and it matters. (For a deeper dive into the resume-side questions people keep asking, the resume writing FAQ covers the rest.)

Past that, getting an interview depends on whether a human recruiter likes what they read. That's a different problem, and the Recruiter Screen Simulator is the tool for it.