I've been job hunting for a while, and at some point I got curious about all the AI tools that keep popping up. I ended up trying a bunch of them over the last two months.

Obviously this is just my experience, and different industries probably get different results, but I figured I'd share what I found since most of the "Top 10" articles online feel pretty promotional.

I roughly grouped them by how they work.

1. Auto-apply platforms

These are the tools that try to handle applications for you instead of just helping with resumes.

1. Jobloo

This is probably the one I used the most. The experience is pretty simple: you swipe through jobs, and the applications happen in the background.

What I liked was that it seemed to customize applications more than some of the other tools I tried. I didn't notice obvious AI mistakes or random skills being added to my resume, which was something I worried about going in. I also liked not having to keep a browser tab open all day.

That said, I only used it for about two weeks, so I can't really say how it compares over the long run. The main reason I put it first is that it's the only one that actually got me interviews so far (4 interviews in roughly two weeks), although obviously your mileage may vary.

2. Sorce

Sorce felt more like an application management tool than a fully hands-off auto-apply platform.

From what I saw, it doesn't rebuild or adapt your resume for each job, so I was still relying on my main CV most of the time. The tracking features are useful, though, and if you prefer keeping everything organized in one place, I can see why people like it.

Personally, I ended up spending more time with other tools, but that's mostly because I was looking for something that handled more of the customization automatically.

2. Browser-extension automation tools

These generally work through Chrome extensions and automate the application process locally.

3. LazyApply

Definitely the fastest option if your goal is pure volume.

My biggest concern was that it didn't feel particularly customized. I mostly used the same resume across applications, which may or may not matter depending on your field. I've also heard mixed opinions about whether applying in massive batches hurts your chances, but I don't know how much evidence there is for that.

4. Sonara

Sonara felt a bit more polished than LazyApply to me.

It does some optimization on your existing resume, although I didn't get the impression that every application was being rebuilt from scratch. Overall, it seemed like a middle ground between convenience and customization.

5. Massive

Massive works well enough, but I personally found it expensive for what it offers.

Other people might disagree, but I wasn't convinced that the extra cost translated into significantly better results during my testing.

6. LoopCV

LoopCV has been around for a while and is extremely automation-focused.

The email outreach features are interesting, although I'm always a little skeptical about sending large numbers of similar messages to recruiters. The interface also felt a bit dated compared to some newer tools, but that's obviously subjective.

7. Simplify

I probably should mention Simplify since a lot of people seem to use it.

It's somewhere between a job tracker and an application assistant. The autofill features save a ton of time, and the Chrome extension works well for finding and organizing jobs. I never used it as a full automation tool, though—I mostly treated it as a way to make manual applications less painful.

The biggest advantage is probably its user base and integrations. The downside, at least for me, is that it still relies pretty heavily on the browser-extension workflow, which I found broke fairly often. But plenty of people seem to love it, so it's definitely worth trying.

3. Resume and optimization tools

These don't apply for you. They mostly help improve your resume or track applications.

8. Seekario

I actually liked Seekario for figuring out why certain resumes weren't matching job descriptions.

It points out missing keywords and gives useful feedback, although you still have to do the actual applications yourself.

9. Teal

Teal is probably the best tracking tool I tried.

The resume builder is nice, and the job tracker is genuinely useful if you prefer a more manual approach. It almost feels like a CRM for your job search.

10. Rezi

Rezi is good if you're struggling to write resume bullet points or reword experience.

Like with any AI writing tool, I think it's worth proofreading everything carefully. Sometimes the suggestions can sound a little more impressive than what you actually did.

11. Jobscan

Jobscan is kind of the classic ATS optimization tool.

The core idea is still useful—comparing your resume against a job description—but I do wonder whether some of that functionality is easier to replicate with ChatGPT now. Still, plenty of people seem to swear by it.

Overall thoughts

For resume optimization and tracking, I probably liked Teal the most.

For understanding keyword gaps, Seekario was helpful.

For automation, I ended up getting real results with Jobloo, mostly because I preferred the workflow and didn't have to babysit a Chrome extension all day. But that's just one person's experience, and I'm sure other people have had success with different setups.

One thing I'm genuinely curious about: has anyone else noticed Workday applications getting rejected almost immediately after using some of the browser automation tools, or am I imagining that?

If you’re applying to jobs right now, you’ve probably noticed that sending 200 applications and getting 2 callbacks is the new normal.

I spent a couple of months testing the main AI auto-apply tools (LazyApply, Sonara, Seekario, and Jobloo) to see if they actually fix this, or if they just create more noise.

Here is what I found out about how they actually operate under the hood.

LazyApply and Sonara: The "Volume" Trap

Both of these tools are essentially browser extensions. You leave your browser open, and a script takes over your screen to apply to hundreds of jobs on LinkedIn Easy Apply or Indeed.

The biggest flaw? They send the exact same resume to every single job. A startup in Paris gets the exact same document as a corporate role at a massive bank.

I talked to a recruiter who told me that hiring platforms like Workday and Greenhouse actually flag this. If they see you applied to 4 different roles at their company in one week with the exact same generic document, they just remove you from consideration. You are burning bridges without realizing it.

Seekario: Half the Solution

Seekario is different. It actually scores your resume against the job description and tells you what keywords you are missing. It’s a great tool to understand why you are being rejected.

The problem? It doesn’t apply for you. If you want to apply to 15 jobs, you are still spending two hours manually filling out Workday forms and copy-pasting data.

Jobloo: The Safer Alternative

Jobloo works best because it works completely differently from the mass-apply browser extensions

first, it’s a web app that runs in the background. You swipe on jobs you want (like Tinder), and it submits them directly to the company’s actual career page (Greenhouse, Workday, Lever), rather than through LinkedIn Easy Apply. This signals to the employer that you actually went to their site.

But the main reason it actually works is the tailoring. Instead of sending one generic CV, it generates a unique version of your resume for every single job you swipe on. It extracts your hard facts (dates, titles) and locks them in, then only rewrites the bullet points to match that specific job's keywords

Sorce is another app which is the closest thing UI-wise (swipe to apply to jobs), but they just send the same generic CV.. so not good for actual callbacks. from the data I’ve seen, the generic mass-apply tools average a 2-4% callback rate. Tools that actually tailor your resume per job are hitting closer to 12%.

The Takeaway

Speed of submission is not the same as rate of callback. Sending 500 identical generic resumes just makes you look like spam. If you are going to use AI, use a tool that tailors the document for every job and submits it cleanly

I’ve spent the last year building AI infrastructure that interfaces directly with recruiting platforms. In the process of figuring out how to automate applications without breaking the parsers, I had to learn exactly how these systems digest PDF files.

If you're wondering why your Easy Apply goes into a black hole, or why Workday makes you retype everything, here is what’s actually happening under the hood.

1. Workday (The Keyword Filter) Workday is incredibly keyword-density focused. When it parses your resume, it actively scores it against the job description and produces a match percentage. Recruiters often set filters based on this score. If you’re below a certain threshold (often 60-70%), no human ever sees your file. This is why tailoring your CV for Workday actually yields callbacks, but the manual data entry makes it a nightmare to do at scale.

2. Greenhouse (The Structure Stickler) Greenhouse parses section headers very aggressively. If your resume gets creative and uses "My Professional Journey" instead of "Experience," or "What I Know" instead of "Skills," its parser often drops those fields entirely. Fancy dual-column Canva layouts routinely break Greenhouse's text extraction.

3. Lever (The Data Validator) Lever is much more forgiving on crazy formatting and columns, but it is brutally strict on contact info extraction. If your phone number isn't in a standard international format (e.g., +1, +33), it might map it to null.

4. Ashby (The Modern Parser) Ashby is newer and has a significantly better parsing engine than the legacy systems. It handles multi-column and heavily designed resumes better than most. However, if you embed actual tables inside your PDF to align your dates, it will still scramble the text sequence.

5. SmartRecruiters (The Aggressive De-Duplicator) SmartRecruiters has solid text parsing, but it is incredibly aggressive on candidate de-duplication. If you apply to a new role but you previously applied there 3 years ago with a different email, it will often merge your profiles based on name/phone number and sometimes prioritize your old resume data in the recruiter's primary view.

TLDR on how to beat them:

1. Stop using columns. Plain, single-column formatting is the only way to ensure Workday and Greenhouse read your bullet points in the correct order.
2. Use standard headers. (Experience, Education, Skills). Do not deviate.
3. Mirror the exact phrases. If the JD says "Python3", don't write "Python". Workday's exact-match logic is not always smart enough to bridge the gap.
4. Always use PDF. DOCX parsing remains highly inconsistent across older ATS versions.
5. Standardize your phone number. Use the +[country code] format.

I'm deep in the weeds on this stuff right now. Let me know if you have questions about specific ATS systems or how different AI autofill tools interact with them!

I’ve spent the last year building AI infrastructure that interfaces directly with recruiting platforms. In the process of figuring out how to automate applications without breaking the parsers, I had to learn exactly how these systems digest PDF files.

If you're wondering why your Easy Apply goes into a black hole, or why Workday makes you retype everything, here is what’s actually happening under the hood.

1. Workday (The Keyword Filter) Workday is incredibly keyword-density focused. When it parses your resume, it actively scores it against the job description and produces a match percentage. Recruiters often set filters based on this score. If you’re below a certain threshold (often 60-70%), no human ever sees your file. This is why tailoring your CV for Workday actually yields callbacks, but the manual data entry makes it a nightmare to do at scale.

2. Greenhouse (The Structure Stickler) Greenhouse parses section headers very aggressively. If your resume gets creative and uses "My Professional Journey" instead of "Experience," or "What I Know" instead of "Skills," its parser often drops those fields entirely. Fancy dual-column Canva layouts routinely break Greenhouse's text extraction.

3. Lever (The Data Validator) Lever is much more forgiving on crazy formatting and columns, but it is brutally strict on contact info extraction. If your phone number isn't in a standard international format (e.g., +1, +33), it might map it to null.

4. Ashby (The Modern Parser) Ashby is newer and has a significantly better parsing engine than the legacy systems. It handles multi-column and heavily designed resumes better than most. However, if you embed actual tables inside your PDF to align your dates, it will still scramble the text sequence.

5. SmartRecruiters (The Aggressive De-Duplicator) SmartRecruiters has solid text parsing, but it is incredibly aggressive on candidate de-duplication. If you apply to a new role but you previously applied there 3 years ago with a different email, it will often merge your profiles based on name/phone number and sometimes prioritize your old resume data in the recruiter's primary view.

TLDR on how to beat them:

1. Stop using columns. Plain, single-column formatting is the only way to ensure Workday and Greenhouse read your bullet points in the correct order.
2. Use standard headers. (Experience, Education, Skills). Do not deviate.
3. Mirror the exact phrases. If the JD says "Python3", don't write "Python". Workday's exact-match logic is not always smart enough to bridge the gap.
4. Always use PDF. DOCX parsing remains highly inconsistent across older ATS versions.
5. Standardize your phone number. Use the +[country code] format.

I'm deep in the weeds on this stuff right now. Let me know if you have questions about specific ATS systems or how different AI autofill tools interact with them!

I've been tracking job application data for the past year using aggregated data from various AI job application tools.

Here are the callback rates by submission method across roughly 1M applications in the US and Europe:

Method	Callback Rate
LinkedIn Easy Apply (PDF dump)	1.8%
LinkedIn Easy Apply (native form)	2.3%
Workday portal — generic CV	3.1%
Workday portal — tailored CV	8.4%
Direct company portal — tailored CV	12.7%

The gap between Easy Apply and direct tailored submissions is massive, and the mechanics explain why.

When you use Easy Apply to dump a PDF, that file drops into a queue with thousands of others. The recruiter usually just sorts the spreadsheet by keyword density. Your PDF gets ranked against keywords you never saw and couldn't match.

Applying directly on a Workday portal with a CV rewritten to include the exact terminology from the job description means the ATS scores you higher before a human ever opens the file.

The practical problem is that tailoring a CV for every single application takes an hour. Most people default to Easy Apply because they have to, and then hear nothing back.

There are tools built to solve this (Jobloo, LazyApply, Sonara, etc.) and I'll do a breakdown of how they compare later. But the main takeaway from the data is that Easy Apply is burning your time.

I've been tracking job application data for the past year using aggregated data from various AI job application tools.

Here are the callback rates by submission method across roughly 1M applications in the US and Europe:

Method	Callback Rate
LinkedIn Easy Apply (PDF dump)	1.8%
LinkedIn Easy Apply (native form)	2.3%
Workday portal — generic CV	3.1%
Workday portal — tailored CV	8.4%
Direct company portal — tailored CV	12.7%

The gap between Easy Apply and direct tailored submissions is massive, and the mechanics explain why.

When you use Easy Apply to dump a PDF, that file drops into a queue with thousands of others. The recruiter usually just sorts the spreadsheet by keyword density. Your PDF gets ranked against keywords you never saw and couldn't match.

Applying directly on a Workday portal with a CV rewritten to include the exact terminology from the job description means the ATS scores you higher before a human ever opens the file.

The practical problem is that tailoring a CV for every single application takes an hour. Most people default to Easy Apply because they have to, and then hear nothing back.

There are tools built to solve this (Jobloo, LazyApply, Sonara, etc.) and I'll do a breakdown of how they compare later. But the main takeaway from the data is that Easy Apply is burning your time.

I've been tracking job application data for the past year using aggregated data from various AI job application tools.

Here are the callback rates by submission method across roughly 1M applications in the US and Europe:

Method	Callback Rate
LinkedIn Easy Apply (PDF dump)	1.8%
LinkedIn Easy Apply (native form)	2.3%
Workday portal — generic CV	3.1%
Workday portal — tailored CV	8.4%
Direct company portal — tailored CV	12.7%

The gap between Easy Apply and direct tailored submissions is massive, and the mechanics explain why.

When you use Easy Apply to dump a PDF, that file drops into a queue with thousands of others. The recruiter usually just sorts the spreadsheet by keyword density. Your PDF gets ranked against keywords you never saw and couldn't match.

Applying directly on a Workday portal with a CV rewritten to include the exact terminology from the job description means the ATS scores you higher before a human ever opens the file.

The practical problem is that tailoring a CV for every single application takes an hour. Most people default to Easy Apply because they have to, and then hear nothing back.

There are tools built to solve this (Jobloo, LazyApply, Sonara, etc.) and I'll do a breakdown of how they compare later. But the main takeaway from the data is that Easy Apply is burning your time.

In the new interface I can’t even open the Editor view, I’m stuck in the Agent view..

Sounds like I need to uninstall the current version and install the 1.23.2, unless anyone found a solution?

Seriously, lots of the time it feels like Antigravity is a forgotten project by Google, carried by a solo vibe coder or something. I wish I could have one week with no bugs, crash or server errors

Am I the only one that gets no response from antigravity? I'm not even getting error from servers being busy, it's just straight up freezing.

Anybody had that issue and fixed it?

https://preview.redd.it/0hqh0tw5ru1h1.png?width=456&format=png&auto=webp&s=11a27670007393d728b213ecae97ad02d8981cb4