We use cookies for analytics and advertising to understand what's working and reach people who might find this useful. Essential cookies for sign-in always run. Privacy policy
For working recruiters
Fast rankings you can defend.
Rank a stack of résumés into your shortlist in seconds — and for every candidate, see every requirement, whether they met it, and the line from their résumé that says so. Place faster without guessing, and answer for how you screened.
$59.99/mo · your entire candidate pool, searchable · cancel anytime
200 resumes per role
Your inbox fills up before lunch. Ctrl-F gets you nowhere. The good candidates blend in with the bad ones.
2 hours per JD, gone
Two hours sorting today means two hours not pitching, not closing, not earning. Across the year, that's $40K of your billable time.
ChatGPT can't repeat itself
Paste the same 20 resumes twice, get different rankings. Useful for a first pass — useless if a candidate ever pushes back.
How it works
Drag a folder. Get a ranked shortlist. Open the evidence.
One JD. Up to 200 resumes. One ranked grid. Click any candidate to see exactly which JD requirements they meet — with the resume snippet that proves it.
Paste your JD
Drop the JD as text or upload the file. We parse it into individual requirements — must-haves, preferred, responsibilities.
Drag a folder of resumes
Native folder picker or drag-drop. PDF or DOCX, up to 200. We score each candidate against every requirement.
Read the top 20
You still make the decision — we just make sure the right 20 are at the top. Export the full ranking as CSV with email and phone.
The audit trail
Every requirement. Yes or no. And why.
Not a percentage you have to take on faith. Open any candidate and you get the JD broken into individual requirements, a yes or no against each one, and the sentence from their résumé behind every answer — including the ones they failed.
Requirement by requirement
Must-haves, preferred, and responsibilities are separated. You see which bucket each answer belongs to, so a missing nice-to-have never reads like a missing must-have.
The line that decided it
Each answer carries the résumé sentence it came from. "Led a team of eight" satisfies a leadership requirement even though the word leadership never appears.
No AI in the ranking
Zero AI in scoring or ranking — nothing is generated, nothing drifts. Re-run the same batch next month and you get the same numbers, with the same evidence behind them.
See a live sample — real candidates, real evidence, nothing staged.
Other tools count words
We tell you which requirements they actually meet.
Most "AI screening" tools extract a candidate's skills and compare them to your JD's skills. They give you a 72% overlap score and call it a day.
We evaluate each requirement individually — does this candidate's resume satisfy this specific requirement? With a pointer to the exact paragraph that proves it. So when a rejected candidate ever pushes back, you have the evidence.
Which means the qualified candidate who uses different words than your JD still surfaces. Your posting says Bedrock, theirs says Vertex AI. You asked for leadership, they wrote "led the migration and owned the rollout" and never used the word. A keyword scan drops both. We credit the capability, and show you the line it came from.
Requirement breakdown · D. Vasquez · candidate #5
5+ years building scalable enterprise modernization solutions
"led re-architecture of legacy .NET to .NET Core on Kubernetes"
Strong cloud platform experience (AWS, Azure, GCP)
"multi-cloud platforms in AWS and Azure across 300+ landscapes"
AI/ML automation framework experience
"ML-assisted automation framework using Python and SaltStack"
Databricks lakehouse architecture experience
no evidence on resume
Same input, same score, every time. Reproducible. Traceable. Defensible.
Pricing
One subscription. Your whole pool.
Screen, search, and rediscover every candidate you've ever received — no per-batch fees.
Monthly
Everything to run your desk. Cancel anytime.
- Unlimited searchable talent pool
- Screen résumés → ranked shortlist
- Rediscover past candidates for new roles
- Stages, notes & reminders
- Import + CSV export
Defensible by design.
If someone asks why a candidate was ranked where they were, you can answer with a record rather than an opinion: every requirement in the JD, whether that candidate met it, and the line from their résumé behind each answer. That record is the same today, next month, and the day a lawyer reads it.
There is no AI in the scoring or the ranking. None. Score with an LLM and you are non-deterministic by definition — run the same candidate twice, get two different answers. Ours is traceable end to end and reproduces exactly. When the NYC AEDT audit (Local Law 144), the Colorado AI Act, or the EEOC asks how you screened, "here is every requirement and the evidence behind it" is an answer that holds.
The only AI in the product sits outside screening entirely — optional coaching and résumé tailoring — and neither can move a candidate's score or position. And nothing here rejects anyone: FitToHire ranks and shows its work; who advances is your call, on the record, every time.
The scoring model runs on our own hardware. No résumé you upload is sent to a third-party AI service to be screened, ranked, or scored — there is no outside API in that path to send it to.
Place more candidates. Same week.
Screen, organize, and rediscover every candidate — one searchable pool, $59.99/mo, cancel anytime.
Questions? [email protected]