Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeModern hiring is no longer just a document problem. It's a workflow problem. Most comparisons miss this distinction entirely.
The real question isn't whether LaTeX creates prettier resumes. The question is whether your resume creation process supports speed, adaptability, ATS parsing reliability, and recruiter readability without introducing friction.
Many job seekers assume:
•Beautiful formatting = better resume
• Technical resumes = LaTeX
• ATS builders = generic templates
That logic worked years ago.
Today's hiring systems operate differently.
Modern candidates often:
•Apply to dozens of jobs simultaneously
• Tailor resumes for different roles
• Optimize keywords
• Update experience frequently
• Test variations
• Use AI-assisted editing
• Need LinkedIn and portfolio consistency
This creates a workflow challenge.
A resume is no longer a static file. It has become a dynamic asset that changes frequently.
That shift changes how LaTeX and ATS builders should be evaluated.
FactorLaTeX ResumeATS Resume BuilderATS compatibilityDepends heavily on templateUsually optimized by defaultLearning curveHighLowCustomization controlExtremely highModerateSpeed of updatesSlowerFasterTechnical skills requiredYesMinimalRecruiter readabilityVariesUsually optimizedAI workflow supportLimitedOften integratedResume version managementManualEasierBulk tailoringDifficultEasierProductivity at scaleLowerHigher
The biggest difference isn't aesthetics.
It's workflow efficiency.
Most content online simplifies ATS behavior into:
"Use plain formatting and you'll be fine."
That advice is incomplete.
Modern applicant tracking systems do not reject resumes simply because they look attractive.
The actual issue is parsing consistency.
ATS systems convert resumes into structured fields:
•Job titles
• Dates
• Employers
• Skills
• Education
• Keywords
• Experience sections
The problem with many LaTeX templates isn't LaTeX itself.
The issue is how templates generate PDFs.
Some templates use:
•Text layering
• Icon libraries
• custom spacing structures
• unusual encoding
• embedded objects
• visual tricks
Humans see a polished document.
ATS software sometimes sees broken structure.
Common outcomes:
•Missing dates
• Merged job titles
• Lost keywords
• reordered sections
• parsing failures
Users often never realize this happened.
This hidden failure creates one of the biggest workflow risks in resume creation.
LaTeX power users love flexibility.
And for good reason.
LaTeX provides:
•Pixel-level control
• reusable components
• custom styling
• technical typography quality
• publication-level precision
But job search workflows introduce different demands.
Imagine this scenario:
You apply to:
•Product Manager roles
• Technical Program Manager roles
• Operations roles
• Startup roles
Each version may require:
•keyword changes
• revised summaries
• reordered achievements
• different skill emphasis
With LaTeX:
•edit source files
• recompile documents
• manage file versions
• maintain consistency manually
At small scale this feels manageable.
At high application volume it becomes friction.
Small workflow interruptions compound quickly.
Competitors rarely discuss this productivity cost.
ATS builders optimize for speed and repeatability.
Their purpose isn't maximum design freedom.
Their purpose is reducing workflow overhead.
Modern resume builders commonly include:
•AI-assisted rewriting
• section recommendations
• keyword optimization
• template switching
• instant formatting updates
• role-based suggestions
• version duplication
This changes behavior.
Instead of treating resumes as fixed documents, users iterate continuously.
That matters because job search success often comes from experimentation.
Not perfection.
Consider two candidates.
Candidate A uses LaTeX.
Workflow:
•duplicate file
• edit source
• compile PDF
• check spacing
• review formatting
• export again
Candidate B uses ATS software.
Workflow:
•duplicate version
• edit role-specific content
• export
Time difference:
Potentially 15–30 minutes per variation.
Multiply by:
•20 applications
• 50 applications
• 100 applications
The difference becomes substantial.
The issue isn't capability.
The issue is operational efficiency.
LaTeX absolutely remains valuable in specific situations.
It works particularly well for:
•software engineers
• researchers
• academics
• data scientists
• PhD applicants
• users already familiar with LaTeX
• portfolio-focused technical professionals
Why?
Because these users often prioritize:
•structured technical layouts
• publications
• equations
• research formatting
• precision typography
• custom visual hierarchy
For users already inside LaTeX workflows, switching costs may outweigh benefits.
The key point:
LaTeX excels when document control is the primary goal.
ATS builders become stronger when users prioritize:
•application volume
• speed
• workflow simplicity
• AI-assisted writing
• resume iteration
• recruiter readability
• reduced technical overhead
These users often care less about typography perfection.
They care about outcomes.
Questions become:
"Can I adapt this resume in five minutes?"
"Can I create multiple role versions?"
"Can I improve ATS performance quickly?"
"Can I maintain consistency?"
This is where ATS builders typically outperform.
Most users underestimate resume maintenance.
Resumes rarely stay static.
Updates happen constantly:
•promotions
• certifications
• side projects
• skill changes
• metric improvements
• role transitions
LaTeX introduces an ongoing maintenance requirement.
The friction isn't obvious initially.
But over time:
•files multiply
• versions drift
• edits become repetitive
Many users eventually create inconsistent resume ecosystems.
This workflow problem rarely gets discussed.
Job seekers often overestimate formatting differences.
Recruiters care primarily about:
•readability
• fast information scanning
• achievement clarity
• measurable impact
• logical structure
Recruiters typically spend only seconds on initial evaluation.
A technically elegant LaTeX file offers little advantage if:
•achievements are weak
• hierarchy is confusing
• important information gets buried
Formatting supports content.
It does not replace content.
Another major shift is AI-assisted resume workflows.
Users increasingly expect:
•content suggestions
• achievement rewriting
• keyword enhancement
• personalization
• resume analysis
Traditional LaTeX workflows struggle here.
ATS builders increasingly integrate:
•AI editing
• job matching
• optimization suggestions
• content assistance
This matters because users increasingly optimize resumes dynamically rather than manually.
The workflow itself is evolving.
Many users no longer want to choose between:
•ATS optimization
• premium design
• speed
• personalization
• workflow simplicity
This is where newer platforms attempt to bridge the gap.
Rather than forcing users into highly technical workflows or generic templates, tools like NewCV combine:
•recruiter-friendly formatting
• ATS-focused structure
• AI-assisted editing
• modern visual design
• faster resume creation workflows
• stronger personal branding presentation
The practical shift is workflow efficiency.
Users increasingly want resume systems that reduce friction while still producing documents that feel professionally designed.
The decision today is becoming less about file format and more about workflow architecture.
Template quality varies dramatically.
Even highly popular templates may create parsing problems.
Visual polish matters less than readability and workflow efficiency.
A resume edited often requires a different system than a static document.
Unlimited control creates overhead.
Too much flexibility can slow execution.
Modern platforms increasingly support personalization and strong design systems.
Choose LaTeX if:
•you already know LaTeX
• typography precision matters
• you create technical resumes
• customization outweighs speed
• your workflow is low volume
Choose an ATS resume builder if:
•you apply frequently
• you want faster updates
• you tailor resumes often
• you use AI-assisted workflows
• you prioritize efficiency
Choose a hybrid approach if:
•you maintain one master technical resume
• create optimized versions for applications separately
Many experienced professionals increasingly use this workflow.
The LaTeX versus ATS resume builder debate isn't really about design.
It's about workflow design.
LaTeX gives unmatched control but often introduces operational complexity.
ATS builders reduce friction and align better with modern application behavior.
The strongest resume system today isn't necessarily the most technically impressive.
It's the one that lets you move faster, adapt easier, maintain consistency, and stay aligned with how hiring actually works.
That difference matters more than most resume comparisons admit.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin
