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 ResumeOverleaf resume templates are excellent if you're a developer, researcher, engineer, or LaTeX user who values precision, version control, and complete formatting control. But for everyone else, the experience often breaks down fast. The biggest issue is not template quality. It's workflow friction. Small edits become code changes. Formatting requires syntax knowledge. Preview delays interrupt iteration. And customizing a resume for different jobs becomes slower than most users expect.
This creates a practical divide: technical users often love Overleaf because it behaves like a development environment. Non-technical users frequently abandon it because resume creation becomes a formatting project instead of a career workflow. If your goal is getting a polished, ATS-friendly resume out quickly and adapting it repeatedly for job applications, the real question is not whether Overleaf is powerful. It’s whether its workflow matches how you actually work.
Overleaf sits on top of the LaTeX ecosystem, which has long been popular in academic and technical communities.
For resumes, users are attracted by:
•Extremely polished typography
• Precise layout control
• Professional academic styling
• Free access to community templates
• Collaborative editing
• PDF-first output
• Git integration and version control compatibility
For engineers and developers, this feels familiar. Your resume becomes another structured document in your workflow.
You edit source files.
You compile output.
You track changes.
You iterate.
That sounds ideal—until the workflow shifts from document management into actual job application behavior.
Because resumes are rarely static.
People customize resumes constantly:
•Adjusting bullets for different jobs
• Reordering projects
• Removing sections
• Updating keywords
• Modifying summaries
• Creating role-specific versions
This is where real friction begins.
Most reviews compare template aesthetics.
That's the wrong evaluation framework.
Resume workflows are primarily editing workflows.
The question isn't:
"Does the template look good?"
The real question is:
"How quickly can I repeatedly adapt this resume without introducing friction?"
Most job seekers edit resumes dozens of times.
Sometimes hundreds.
What works in a one-time formatting environment often breaks down under repeated use.
Overleaf introduces hidden editing costs:
•Every visual change may require syntax changes
• Small spacing issues become troubleshooting sessions
• Package conflicts occasionally appear
• Customization requires understanding document structure
• Faster iteration becomes difficult for non-technical users
Developers often underestimate this because editing code already feels natural.
Most users do not think that way.
They think:
"I need to update three bullets and send this by tonight."
Those are radically different workflows.
For technical users, Overleaf solves real problems.
LaTeX gives exact formatting behavior.
Margins, alignment, spacing, hierarchy, and consistency remain stable.
Word processors often shift layouts unexpectedly.
Developers hate unpredictable formatting.
LaTeX removes that.
Technical professionals often maintain:
•GitHub portfolios
• Research papers
• Documentation systems
• Project repositories
Adding resumes into that workflow feels natural.
Resume versions become manageable.
Developer resumes often contain:
•Code repositories
• publications
• project links
• mathematical content
• research sections
• complex formatting structures
LaTeX templates frequently handle these better than standard builders.
Especially for academia and engineering.
The problem is not intelligence.
It's workflow mismatch.
Overleaf asks users to think about document construction instead of resume outcomes.
For example:
Changing:
"Software Engineer"
to:
"Senior Software Engineer"
inside Word:
Click → edit → done.
Inside Overleaf:
You may edit:
Now imagine:
•changing section order
•adjusting spacing
•inserting certifications
•adding portfolio links
•removing academic sections
Minor edits become structural edits.
This creates cognitive overhead.
Users stop focusing on:
"Does this resume improve my interview chances?"
And start focusing on:
"Why did formatting suddenly move?"
That is workflow friction.
Most online discussions miss this entirely.
Resume success increasingly depends on adaptation speed.
Modern applications often require:
•tailoring keywords
•changing achievements
•emphasizing different experience
•adjusting industry language
•aligning with role descriptions
If editing takes too long, users customize less.
And less customization usually means weaker applications.
The irony:
Powerful formatting can create weaker application workflows.
Because optimization frequency matters more than visual perfection.
There is a persistent myth:
"LaTeX resumes fail ATS systems."
That statement is outdated.
Modern ATS platforms generally parse PDFs much better than older systems.
The issue isn't LaTeX itself.
The issue is template structure.
Bad template characteristics include:
•tables for layout
•multi-column complexity
•icon-heavy sections
•unusual formatting structures
•decorative design patterns
Simple LaTeX resumes generally parse well.
But users frequently download visually impressive templates without understanding underlying structure.
That creates problems.
ATS compatibility depends less on Overleaf and more on template decisions.
People rarely quit because they dislike templates.
They quit because repeated friction compounds.
Common complaints include:
•Simple edits taking too long
•Learning syntax for minor changes
•Preview compile delays
•Difficulty customizing sections
•Confusing formatting hierarchy
•Dependency issues in imported templates
•Resume changes feeling like coding tasks
The issue isn't difficulty.
It's interruption.
Good productivity tools disappear into the background.
Bad workflow friction constantly demands attention.
Resume behavior changed.
People no longer build one resume every few years.
Modern users often create:
•role-specific resumes
•portfolio versions
•freelancer versions
•startup-focused resumes
•corporate resumes
•networking versions
•AI-assisted revisions
Speed increasingly matters.
Users want:
•fast editing
•AI assistance
•version duplication
•recruiter-friendly formatting
•personalization support
•consistent design systems
Traditional template systems—including Overleaf—were not built around this workflow.
They were built around document creation.
Not iteration velocity.
The major tradeoff historically looked like this:
Beautiful resume design versus ATS performance.
Speed versus customization.
Professional appearance versus editing simplicity.
Many users felt forced to choose.
Platforms like NewCV increasingly address that workflow problem differently.
Instead of asking users to manage formatting logic manually, the workflow focuses on outcomes:
•ATS-friendly structure
•modern design systems
•AI-assisted editing
•faster customization
•recruiter readability
•easier personalization
•portfolio-style presentation
The practical benefit is not aesthetics.
It's reduced workflow friction.
Users spend less time maintaining document structure and more time improving actual application quality.
That distinction matters more than many resume reviews acknowledge.
The answer depends almost entirely on workflow fit.
Use Overleaf if:
•You're comfortable with LaTeX
•You're a developer or researcher
•You use Git workflows
•Formatting precision matters heavily
•You enjoy structured editing environments
•You rarely need rapid customization
Avoid Overleaf if:
•You dislike syntax-based editing
•You frequently tailor resumes
•You prioritize speed
•You want AI assistance
•You prefer visual editing
•Resume maintenance already feels tedious
Most users overestimate formatting importance and underestimate workflow efficiency.
The better question is:
"How often will I update this resume?"
Not:
"How nice does this template look today?"
•Stable formatting
•Technical and academic layouts
•Git integration
•Research-focused resumes
•Long-term version control
•Developer workflows
•Fast iteration
•low-friction editing
•beginner usability
•rapid customization
•AI-assisted workflows
•non-technical user onboarding
Resume systems succeed when they reduce friction.
They fail when formatting becomes the job.
Overleaf resume templates are not overrated.
They're simply optimized for a different user.
Developers often evaluate tools through control and precision.
Most job seekers evaluate tools through speed and ease.
Those are different priorities.
If your resume behaves like a living document that changes every week, workflow efficiency often matters more than typography perfection.
The strongest resume system is usually not the one with the most control.
It's the one you'll consistently update, optimize, and use.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin
