Paste a job description and see how your resume actually reads against it - the requirements you evidence, the ones you do not, and which of those is a wording problem rather than a skills problem. Matched by meaning against our own skill taxonomy, not by counting words.
At a glance
Each match costs 3 credits and a new verified account starts with 20, so that is 6 tailored applications before you pay anything. Upload your resume once; every new posting after that is one paste and one click.
Re-running the identical resume against the identical posting is free - you are never charged twice for the same question. Changing either one is a fresh run, because it is a different question.
Credits never expire and there is no subscription, so an unused balance is still there when your next search starts.
Both contain the same word, so string matching sees the same thing twice. This compares meaning against a curated taxonomy, then splits what is missing into the part you can fix by rewriting a bullet and the part you cannot.
Meaning
Your resume and the posting's requirements are both projected onto our own curated skill taxonomy, so the tool can tell you that you evidence REST API design where the role wants gRPC - adjacent, not equal. That is 38% of the score. Literal keyword presence is in there too, at 5%, because some screening genuinely is a text search and pretending otherwise would cost you interviews.
Two kinds of gap
A wording gap means you have the skill and no bullet shows it - a ten-minute fix, and the commonest improvement available on any application. A real gap means there is nothing on your resume for it and nothing adjacent. Every gap is labelled one or the other.
A refusal
If the posting wants Kubernetes and you have no container work at all, the report says so and calls it something to learn. No suggested wording, no softer synonym. A claim you cannot defend is an interview you fail on the next question.
Hard requirements
A posting is a few hard requirements plus a wish list, and a score that averages them is comfortable and useless. Must-have coverage is its own 26% dimension, binary per requirement - so missing the one mandatory item does not get hidden by nine optional ones.
Free to try
6 tailored applications before you pay anything. Upload your resume once and every new posting after that is one paste - and re-running the identical pair is always free, so checking whether your rewrite landed costs nothing.
No brand names in this table on purpose. Prices and feature lists in this category move every few months, and a stale figure in somebody else’s column would undermine the one thing this page is actually selling - that our numbers are checkable. So the columns are approaches, and every claim in ours is verifiable in the sample below.
If the same gaps keep coming back, stop tailoring. Running this against fifteen postings and seeing the same three real gaps every time is not a tailoring problem - it is the resume, or the roles. That is the point at which a person is worth more than another run.
Resume Review from ₹299A search is twenty to fifty applications, not one. Every match is saved against its job description, so re-running a posting after you have fixed something updates the same row and shows the difference - and your log ends up being the record of the search, including the roles you tailored for and never sent.
| Role | Company | Match | Tailored | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Backend Engineer, Payments | [COMPANY_1] | 6184+23 | 3 days ago | Applied |
| SDE-2, Platform | [COMPANY_2] | 7489+15 | 3 days ago | Interviewing |
| Backend Engineer | - | 58 | 2 days ago | Draft |
The status is yours to set - we never infer it. Tailoring a resume is not applying for a job, and guessing would put a wrong fact in the one column you own.
Everything below is a worked example on a made-up resume and a made-up job description - there is no real person or company in it. The names appear as [CANDIDATE] and [COMPANY_1] because that is exactly what our own redaction produces before anything is sent to an AI provider. Your report looks like this. Everything inside the window below is the real component the dashboard renders - not a screenshot and not a trimmed version of it.
Revquix Match Score · rubric r1
Good match
61 → 73▲ +12across 3 runs against this posting
Should you send it?
A long shot
There are genuine gaps here that rewriting will not close. Apply if you want this one specifically - just do not build the week around it.
Because: Kubernetes is stated as mandatory and nothing on your resume touches it.
Your fixes for this posting, in order
Anything that can stop the application comes first. After that, each fix is ranked by what it is worth against what it takes, so a one-sentence rewrite comes before a skill you would have to learn. We will not suggest a phrasing that implies you have something you do not.
Worth knowing before you apply
4 fixes worth +23.9 points. Tick each one off as you make it.
Nothing on your resume matches this, and nothing close to it either. The posting says: “Must have”
Deployed services through the platform team's pipeline.
Why this posting cares: This posting runs its own platform rather than buying one, which is why Kubernetes sits under its hard requirements. A screener filtering on it never reaches your Spring Boot work.
What to do: There is no wording that closes this one. If you have run workloads on a cluster somebody else operated, name it and say what you owned; if you have not, this is the gap worth a month.
It is on your resume, but no bullet shows you using it.
It is on your resume, but no bullet shows you using it. The posting says: “Solid understanding”
Why this posting cares: They name Postgres specifically because the schema work is theirs to maintain, and they are checking you have lived with a relational database rather than queried one.
What to do: It is already in your skills list. Move it into the bullet where you designed or migrated a schema, and say what the data actually was.
You evidence REST APIs, which is close to this but not the same thing.
You evidence REST APIs, which is close to this but not the same thing. The posting says: “Familiarity with”
Designed and versioned the REST contracts three teams consumed.
Why this posting cares: They use gRPC because their services talk to each other rather than to a browser, and the real question is whether you have designed a service contract before. Your REST work is the same skill over a different transport.
What to do: Add a clause to your API bullet naming the contract, the versioning approach and who consumed it. Then say plainly that you have not shipped gRPC but have designed service contracts - the transfer is the point.
Nothing on your resume matches this, and nothing close to it either.
Nothing on your resume matches this, and nothing close to it either. The posting says: “Exposure to”
Why this posting cares: This posting lists it under its requirements, so a screener reading for it will not find it and will not look further.
What to do: If you have done this, put it in the bullet that describes the work rather than in the skills list. If you have not, this is a real gap and no rewriting closes it.
Already shown - this posting asks for these and a bullet on your resume demonstrates them (6)
JavaSpring BootREST APIsCI/CDDockerRedis
Copy these
Your facts, re-pointed at what this role asks for. Anything in [square brackets] is a figure we inferred to show you the shape - replace it with your real number before using the line.
Some of these contain figures we inferred, not figures you gave us. Every one is marked below. Replace them with your real numbers before using the line - a fabricated metric is an interview you fail when somebody asks how you measured it.
Your line
Rebuilt the settlement reconciliation service, cutting the nightly batch window from four hours to 40 minutes
Aimed at this role
Rebuilt [COMPANY_1]'s settlement reconciliation service in Java and Spring Boot, cutting the nightly batch window from four hours to 40 minutes across [N] merchant accounts.
[N] is not from your resume. The figures marked below were inferred to show the shape of a strong bullet. Replace them with your real numbers before using this - we never present an invented figure as your own.
Your line
Designed and operated the merchant payout API handling 1.2 million requests a day
Aimed at this role
Designed and operated the merchant payout API at 1.2M requests/day, owning its REST contracts, PostgreSQL access patterns and on-call rotation.
Your line
Led the migration of the ledger writes off a shared database onto a dedicated instance
Aimed at this role
Led the migration of ledger writes off a shared PostgreSQL cluster onto a dedicated instance, cutting write contention [X%] and removing the nightly lock timeouts entirely.
[X%] is not from your resume. The figures marked below were inferred to show the shape of a strong bullet. Replace them with your real numbers before using this - we never present an invented figure as your own.
The outside view
Written from the other side of the desk: somebody reading their fortieth application today, who did not write this posting and is looking for a reason to stop. It is deliberately not encouraging - an outside view that flatters you is worth nothing before you apply.
The read
The first thing this reader sees is six years of backend work at a name they recognise, which buys you the second glance most applications do not get. What decides it is the next fifteen seconds: they are scanning for Kubernetes because the posting leads with it, and it is not there. Your observability work is genuinely relevant and currently invisible - it sits in a skills list rather than in a bullet, so a fast reader will not credit it. On balance this lands in the maybe pile, and maybe piles are read last.
Lead with this
"Cut p95 latency 40% across the payments path" is the strongest line you have for this posting - it is a scale-and-reliability story, which is what they are hiring for. It is currently the fourth bullet of your second role; move it to the first bullet of the first.
The objection to pre-empt
They will ask whether you have run anything in production at their scale, given no orchestration appears anywhere. The honest answer is the incident you handled and what you owned during it - say that rather than implying cluster experience you do not have.
Cut this
The three-line summary paragraph at the top is doing nothing for this application; the space is better spent on the latency bullet a reader currently has to hunt for.
An opener you can paste
I have spent six years building backend services in Java and Spring Boot, most recently on a payments path where I cut p95 latency by 40%. Your posting's emphasis on resilient, observable services is where most of my work has been, and I would welcome the chance to talk about it.
Built only from what your resume evidences and this posting asks for, then checked against your own words before you were shown it. Read it once before you send it - it is going out in your name, not ours.
The arithmetic
Weighted dimensions, computed in our own code and summed. Every contribution below adds up to the total, so you can check the arithmetic. The AI writes the explanations and the rewrites; it never produces or reviews a number.
How much of what this job asks for your resume actually demonstrates, matched by meaning against our own skill taxonomy rather than by exact words.
weight 38%= 21.33 of 6 matched, weighted by how hard the posting asks
The requirements this posting states as mandatory, checked one at a time. Binary per requirement - anything we cannot verify is left out rather than counted against you.
weight 26%= 20.84 of 5 met
Whether your experience level matches what this role is pitched at. A senior applying to a junior role, or the reverse, is a real signal that keyword matching misses.
weight 12%= 12.0Level match
Literal presence of this posting's distinctive terms in your resume. Deliberately the smallest weight: some screening is literal, but matching words is the shallow approach our taxonomy exists to replace.
weight 5%= 3.57 of 10 terms present
Whether the amount of experience and the size of what you have owned line up with what this posting asks for. Years against your own dates, and stated scope against stated scope.
weight 12%= 9.8Six years against the five asked for
Whether your experience is in the same kind of business this role sits in - fintech, e-commerce, healthcare, enterprise software, services. Adjacent is not the same as equal, and it is worth knowing which you are.
weight 7%= 5.2Payments on both sides
The contributions add up to 72.6, which rounds to your match of 73. Each one is that dimension’s sub-score multiplied by the weight actually applied on this run.
The hard filter
Checked one at a time against your resume.
KubernetesSkill · Not met
We did not find Kubernetes anywhere in your resume.
The posting’s words: “Must have”
Met (4)
Check our reading
What this posting asks for, and the line from your resume we measured it against. If a row quotes the wrong line, the score above is measuring something you did not mean - and that is worth knowing before you rewrite anything.
Deployed services through the platform team's pipeline.
A real gap. Nothing here evidences it and no rewording changes that.
Prometheus, Grafana, ELK
Move it into the bullet where an outage was found or prevented.
Designed and versioned the REST contracts three teams consumed.
You evidence REST API design. Name the transfer explicitly.
Built and maintained Java services handling 40k requests a minute on the payments path.
Check our reading
Printed so you can check it. If any of this is wrong, the score above is about the wrong job - and that is worth knowing before you rewrite anything.
From this posting
From your resume
Distinctive terms this posting uses that your resume does not (3 of 10)
KubernetesKafkagRPC
This is a list, not an instruction. Add a term only where you genuinely have the experience behind it - and then add the bullet that shows it, not the word on its own.
Your experience level (senior level) matches what this role is pitched at.
Weighted dimensions, computed in our own code and summed. Every contribution below adds up to the total, so you can check the arithmetic. The AI writes the explanations and the rewrites; it never produces or reviews a number.
This is not an "ATS score". No applicant tracking system gives candidates a score, and nobody outside a company can see how its filters are configured. This is the Revquix Match Score: our own published comparison of your resume against this one job description.
This is a different number from your Readiness Score and the two are not comparable. Readiness asks how good your resume is; Match asks how well it fits this specific posting. A strong resume aimed at the wrong role scores high on one and low on the other - which is the useful part, so we never average them.
Rubric version r1. Every report records the rubric it was scored under, so a match you screenshotted stays explainable even after we publish a new one.
End of the sample report. Everything below this line is the page's own copy - how the match is computed, what happens to the posting you paste, and the questions people ask before pasting one.
Match my ownNo specific posting in hand yet? Then the question is whether the resume itself holds up, which is a different tool - and whether a parser can even read your file is free and needs no account.
Score the resumeCheck parsing, freeYour text is redacted before it reaches any AI model: name, email, phone, address and date of birth are replaced with tokens first. The model reads your document and writes the explanations; it never chooses a number - every score is arithmetic over a fixed rubric in our own code. One input to that arithmetic is the model's reading of which skills you evidence, so we store your result and re-running the same input returns it rather than a fresh one. We never invent a figure your own material does not contain.
Credits are a licence to use these tools - not money, not transferable. Full detail in our privacy policy and AI policy.
What it checks, what it deliberately does not, and how to read the output.
The Revquix Match Score is arithmetic, not a judgement call. Six dimensions are scored 0–100, then weighted and summed: skill overlap 38%, must-have coverage 26%, experience and scope fit 12%, title and seniority fit 12%, domain and context fit 7%, keyword presence 5%. The report prints each sub-score, the weight applied, and the points it contributed - and those add up to the total in front of you.
The posting's requirements are weighted by how hard it asks: a must-have counts for four times what a nice-to-have does, so a resume that misses the one mandatory requirement and holds nine optional ones does not score 90. Every real hiring filter is a few hard requirements plus a wish list, and a score that ignores that is comfortable and useless.
Bands are fixed thresholds, and deliberately not the Readiness Score's: 0–39 low, 40–59 moderate, 60–74 strong, 75–100 excellent. A posting lists everything a team could conceivably want, so nobody matches a real one in the nineties - hiring happens in the sixties. A resume-quality scale would put almost every applicant in the bottom two bands.
Every gap is labelled one of two ways, and they need opposite responses. A wording gap means your resume already has the skill and no bullet demonstrates it - usually it sits in a skills list with nothing behind it. That is a ten-minute fix and the commonest single improvement available on any application. A real gap means there is nothing on your resume for it, and nothing adjacent either.
We will not help you close a real gap with phrasing. If a posting asks for Kubernetes and your resume has no container work at all, the tool says so and calls it something to learn. A claim you cannot defend is an interview you fail on the next question.
The middle case is adjacency, and it is what a keyword matcher structurally cannot produce. If the posting wants gRPC and you evidence REST API design, we say so - adjacent, not equal. Producing that requires a curated taxonomy: string matching cannot tell a listed skill from a demonstrated one, because both contain the same word.
A resume scorer is a tool you use once. Tailoring is per application - and a search is twenty to fifty of them. So this is built around the second run: you upload your resume once, and every new posting after that is one paste and one click.
Each match is saved against its job description, so the dashboard becomes your tailoring log - one row per posting, the score movement across re-runs, and a status you set by hand. Re-running updates the same row and shows the difference. Nothing infers the status for you: tailoring a resume is not applying for a job.
It is not an ATS score. No applicant tracking system gives candidates a score, and nobody outside a company can see how its filters are configured. This is our own published comparison against one posting.
It will not tell you to stuff keywords. Cramming a posting's phrases in to beat a parser produces a document that reads as spam to the human who opens it next, and that human decides. Where a term is genuinely missing we say so; the advice is about evidence, never repetition.
It is not an application tracker either - no reminders, no due dates, no stages beyond the five statuses. It tailors; you apply.
The ones that come up before somebody uploads anything.
No, and nothing that claims to be one is telling you the truth. No applicant tracking system emits a candidate-facing score, and no third party can see how a given company has configured its filters. This is the Revquix Match Score: six weighted dimensions we compute ourselves, with the rubric published and versioned so the number means the same thing next month as it does today.
Meaning, mostly. The largest dimension - 38% - projects both your resume and the posting's requirements onto our own curated skill taxonomy using embeddings, which is how it can tell you that you evidence REST APIs where the posting wants gRPC. Literal keyword presence is in there too, but weighted at only 5%, because some screening genuinely is a text search and pretending otherwise would cost you interviews.
No. Every gap is labelled either a wording gap - you have it and your resume does not show it - or a real gap, where there is nothing on your resume for it and nothing adjacent. For a real gap the tool says plainly that it is something to learn and refuses to suggest a phrasing that implies otherwise. That is a hard product rule, not a setting: a claim you cannot defend is an interview you fail on the question after it.
Every one you actually intend to send, which for most searches is twenty to fifty. That is why the tool is built around re-running: the resume is uploaded once and each new posting is one paste. A search usually settles into two or three matches per role - the first tells you the gaps, the second confirms the rewrite landed.
The redacted text lives inside the saved report, which is retained for twelve months so your tailoring log survives the whole search. It is redacted before anything is stored or sent onward, and that includes the recruiter's contact details from the posting - we do not keep or surface third-party contact information. Your uploaded resume is deleted after 30 days.
It is free. An identical pair returns the stored report and holds no credits, so re-checking something you already ran never costs anything. Changing either side - a tailored resume, or a different posting - is a fresh charged run, because it is a different question.
More from Resume & Profile, or browse the full catalogue.
Every automated check has a ceiling: it can tell you a bullet has no number in it, but it cannot decide which of your projects is worth two lines and which is worth six. A Revquix resume review is written by a person who hires for your target role.
Resume Review from ₹299
