Are the ATS really rejecting your CV, or is it something else?

One of the most repeated claims in the careers industry is that 70% of CVs are rejected by Applicant Tracking Systems before a recruiter ever sees them.

It's one of those statistics that has been quoted so many times that it's become accepted as fact. The problem is that nobody seems able to identify where it actually came from, and I've never seen any credible research that supports it.

Now, before anyone accuses me of saying ATS software doesn't matter, let me be clear - it does. Many organisations, particularly larger employers receiving hundreds or even thousands of applications, use Applicant Tracking Systems to manage the recruitment process.

What an ATS actually is

An Applicant Tracking System is primarily a recruitment platform. It manages vacancies, receives applications, schedules interviews, stores candidate information, handles recruiter workflows, and sends communication.

Some ATS platforms also include CV parsing, candidate matching, and AI-assisted screening capabilities.

Some employers use those features extensively, and others barely use them at all.

And to be a bit pedantic, many recruitment agencies don’t use ATS platforms per se; they use CRM systems such as Bullhorn that have some similar ATS features.

Worrying about the wrong thing

It’s not really the ATS that job seekers should be worried about - it’s the parsing and matching technology within it.

The CV parsing functionality takes the data from your CV and puts it into the ATS database (let’s call that the organisation’s talent pool) - this is more important for future roles than the one you’ve applied for. This is where the formatting of your CV has a bearing on how well it performs (from a data ‘parsing’ perspective)

Secondly, it’s the candidate matching functionality (which may use AI-assisted screening) to help assess applications. This is the bit that’s rather overplayed - recruiters are, for the most part, screening CVs manually (that is their job after all), and the usage within large employers is often overplayed too.

As an example, we delivered a large outplacement programme recently, and the employer’s HR leaders said their ATS was rubbish at matching candidates to vacancies, so they effectively turned the matching module off.

But, and it’s a big but - these technologies are only going to become more sophisticated over the coming years, and anyone who believes AI won't play an increasing role in recruitment is probably kidding themselves.

However, that is very different from saying that an ATS is automatically rejecting most CVs because they don't contain enough keywords.

In fact, one of the questions I get asked often is: "I received a rejection email at 2 o'clock this morning. Does that mean the ATS rejected me?"

Not necessarily.

The email may have been generated automatically, but the decision behind it could have been made for any number of reasons.

Hard filters

The first possibility is that you failed a genuine knockout question. Many employers configure their ATS to automatically reject applicants who don't meet essential criteria. These hard filters could be a qualification or number of years of experience. In these situations, the system isn't making a deep and meaningful judgment of your application - it is simply screening on essential criteria and applying rules that the employer has defined.

When we, as a company, advertise on LinkedIn, we set up hard filters and auto-reject candidates who don’t meet essential criteria.

Past the sell-by date

Another common reason is that the vacancy has effectively closed, even if the advert is still live. Recruiters often identify enough suitable candidates to interview well before the closing date. Once they have a strong shortlist, there is little commercial sense in reviewing another two hundred applications, so the remaining candidates may receive an automated rejection. The timing of the email tells you nothing about when that decision was actually made.

Random o’clock

Then there is the simplest explanation of all. The recruiter has reviewed your CV, decided not to progress your application, and updated your status in the ATS during the day. Rather than sending emails immediately, some systems batch candidate communications, which is why rejection emails might arrive at random o'clock.

On hold

Application limits can also play a part. Some employers review only the first 100 or 200 suitable applicants because that's all they have the capacity to assess. Others will pause recruitment while interviews take place or an offer is being negotiated. Candidates applying later in the process may receive an automated rejection despite never being seriously considered, simply because the recruitment campaign has effectively reached capacity.

Location, location

One often overlooked reason is location. Many jobs have a geographic filter. For example, if I’m seeking a Business Analyst in London, I probably don’t need to look as far away as Aberdeen. Those faraway candidates pose a greater relocation risk, and there are operational considerations for face-to-face interviews. So, many roles will be set up to only consider candidates within a certain radius of the place of work. If your CV doesn’t have your location (usually pulled from a postcode), you may be auto-rejected for this reason.

And a few others

Other reasons could be duplicate applications or agency ownership rules (your application has already been submitted). Sometimes applications have missing information. Then we have recruiter workflow rules - some organisations configure rules such as ‘reject after 14 days if not reviewed’. These create automated outcomes that have little to do with your CV.

The truth of the matter

Of course, CV matching technology is sometimes involved, and ATS platforms do analyse the content of a CV and compare it with the requirements of the role, ranking applicants according to how closely they appear to match. This is particularly common in high-volume recruitment, graduate schemes, and some direct employer recruitment campaigns.

It is, though, less common than many people believe, and even where matching technology is used, recruiters often review applications manually rather than relying on a bot.

The irony is that, after working with more than 45,000 job seekers over the past two decades and speaking to countless recruiters, I think most people are worrying about the wrong thing.

The biggest reason people fail to secure interviews isn't because an ATS couldn't read their CV, it's because their CV simply doesn't give the recruiter/employer enough reason to interview them.

Most CVs describe duties rather than demonstrating value. They communicate what someone was responsible for rather than what they actually achieved. They list competencies without proving them. They fail to quantify impact, fail to differentiate the candidate from their competition, and do not present a compelling business case for being hired.

Whether your CV is reviewed first by a recruiter, a hiring manager, or supported by an ATS ranking system, those weaknesses remain exactly the same.

By all means, make your CV ATS-friendly. Use sensible formatting, include relevant terminology, and make it easy for software to parse. That is simply good practice.

But don't lose sight of the bigger picture. The objective isn't to impress the software, the objective is to persuade the human sitting behind it that you're worth interviewing.

In my experience, that's where the vast majority of candidates win or lose the opportunity.

Some help

If you would like to find out how job-market ready you are, including a look at your CV, you can request one here: https://cvandinterviewadvisors.co.uk/