Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) have become an unavoidable part of the modern hiring process. Love them or hate them, they’re the first gatekeeper standing between you and your next role. But how well do they actually work — and are they stopping qualified candidates from getting a fair shot?
Let’s break down what the numbers say, what recruiters believe, and what job seekers experience.
The Recruiter’s Perspective: Helpful but Flawed
ATS tools are designed to streamline hiring by automating resume sorting, keyword matching, and applicant ranking. On paper, they sound like a recruiter’s best friend — and many agree:
- 94% of recruiters say their ATS has had a positive impact on their hiring process.
- 79% say the quality of hires improved after ATS implementation.
But here’s the catch — even recruiters admit these systems aren’t perfect.
- 88% of employers believe qualified candidates are being rejected outright due to ATS screening.
- Many say these rejections often have nothing to do with skills or experience, but instead result from overly strict filters or formatting issues that prevent resumes from parsing correctly.
The Job Seeker’s Experience: A Wall of Silence
Ask job seekers, and you’ll hear a very different story. For years, a stat has circulated claiming that 75% of resumes are never seen by a human because they’re filtered out by ATS. While this figure lacks solid research backing, it reflects a very real perception:
“I apply to dozens of jobs and never hear a thing. I can’t help but feel my resume isn’t even being read.” — Common sentiment across Reddit, LinkedIn, and career forums.
Whether or not the “75%” number is accurate, the frustration is. Many candidates feel that instead of acting as a bridge, ATS systems have become barriers — filtering out qualified applicants long before recruiters ever get to review their information.
Why Qualified Candidates Get Filtered Out
Even when you have the skills, there are several reasons an ATS might screen you out:
- Overly Strict Keyword Matching
- If the job description says “SIEM Engineering” and you wrote “Security Event Management,” the system may not connect the dots.
- Formatting & Parsing Issues
- Graphics, tables, headers, and non-standard section titles can make your resume unreadable to the ATS parser.
- Hard Filters Set by Recruiters
- Location mismatch, missing certification checkboxes, or fewer years of experience than required can trigger an instant reject — even if you’re otherwise a perfect fit.
Recruiters vs. Job Seekers: The Perception Gap
The data reveals a contradiction:
- Recruiters largely view ATS systems as a net positive for efficiency and candidate quality.
- Job seekers often feel they’re being unfairly shut out before a human ever sees their resume.
The truth likely lies somewhere in between — ATS can improve hiring, but only when configured thoughtfully and paired with human review.
What Job Seekers Can Do About It
If you want to reduce the chances of being filtered out:
- Match keywords exactly from the job posting — include acronyms and full terms.
- Keep formatting simple — no tables, images, or text boxes.
- Use standard headings like “Experience” and “Education.”
- Tailor your resume for every application — one-size-fits-all rarely works with ATS.
The Bottom Line
ATS systems aren’t going anywhere — in fact, they’re becoming more sophisticated. Recruiters generally value them, but even they acknowledge that qualified candidates can slip through the cracks due to overly rigid settings.
For job seekers, the key is understanding how these systems work and playing by their rules. That means keyword precision, clean formatting, and strategic tailoring for each application.
Because whether or not that “75% of resumes” stat is real, one thing is certain: if your resume isn’t ATS-friendly, it’s far more likely to end up in the reject pile before a human ever sees it.
Sources: