The current hiring process is broken — for candidates and companies. We built something that works for both sides.
Most hiring today runs through keyword filters and automated screening tools. Candidates spend hours reformatting CVs only to get auto-rejected. Companies wade through hundreds of similar application thanks the AI slope, hoping to find someone who actually fits.
The system wastes everyone's time — and the best people often never surface because they didn't use the right words.
LinkedIn shows your headline. Seek shows your keyword density. Neither tells a company who you actually are.
Not your job title. Not whether you used the right keywords. The full text of what you've done — every role, every project, every description you've written about your work. Our AI builds a structured understanding of your career and matches it against what companies actually need.
No applying to individual roles. No tailoring your CV for each job description. Your profile sits in our pool and gets matched automatically when a relevant role comes through. You only hear from us when there's a genuine fit.
Most job hunting means hours spent tailoring your CV for each role, rewriting cover letters, researching companies, following up. With us, you upload once and we do the matching. That frees you up for what actually moves the needle: networking, building your reputation, learning something new, or just enjoying the space you have.
Companies see a career summary — seniority, domain, key strengths, fit rationale for their specific role. Not your name. Not your photo. Not where you went to school. Not your gender, age, or background.
This isn't just good ethics. It removes the conditions that allow unconscious bias to operate. Companies cannot silently discriminate on characteristics they cannot see.
Took two years off? Changed industries mid-career? Had a non-linear path through different fields? Our matching looks at what you've done and how you work — not whether your career follows a conventional progression. A gap year, a career change, or an unconventional background is part of your story. It doesn't trigger a filter.
You shouldn't have to spend hours optimising your CV for applicant tracking systems. Write about your work in your own words. That's what we read. That's what we match on.
If you'd consider a GM role at $170k and one comes up at $169k, you'll still be matched. We don't disqualify on hard cutoffs. Hiring is rarely black and white — numbers get negotiated, titles vary by company, and the right role doesn't always arrive in exactly the shape you described. Your preferences guide the matching; they don't gate it.
On other platforms, you see the job description first and then tailor your CV to match it. Everyone ends up sounding the same — echoing the same keywords back at the same filter.
Here, you never see the roles you're being matched against. That means there's nothing to optimise for. You just describe your career honestly, in your own words. Every profile is genuinely different — and that's exactly what makes the matching work.
| What matters | LinkedIn / Seek | Talent Match |
|---|---|---|
| What gets read | Headline, keywords, formatting | Full career history, how you describe your work |
| Effort required | Tailor CV per application, write cover letters | Upload once, matched automatically |
| Time spent on applications | Hours per week tailoring CVs, writing cover letters, following up | One upload, then automatic matching — time freed for networking and life |
| Personal info visible | Name, photo, school visible upfront | Career summary only until you consent |
| Career gaps | Flagged as risk, filtered out | Included as part of your story |
| Non-linear paths | Hard to represent, often penalised | Read and matched on full context |
| Bias risk | Name, photo, school can trigger bias | Hidden until mutual interest confirmed |
Companies post a role and receive a ranked shortlist of genuinely matched candidates — with written rationale for each match. Not 500 applications to screen. A shortlist of people who fit, matched on actual capability rather than keyword density.
Our matching reads every candidate's full career history and compares it to what the role actually requires. That means companies find people who can do the work — not just people who formatted their CV well.
Candidates on Talent Match never see your job ad. They can't reverse-engineer the keywords you're looking for or tailor their profile to match your description. Every profile is written in the candidate's own words, about their actual experience — not a mirror of your job post.
That means the profiles you review are inherently diverse and authentic. It's easier to see through the noise when no one is generating noise in the first place.
Each candidate on the shortlist comes with a clear explanation: why this person fits, what relevant experience they bring, and where their strengths align with the role. Hiring managers can make informed decisions faster without having to piece it together themselves.
Many of the best candidates aren't actively applying anywhere. They've uploaded their profile once and are open to the right opportunity. Companies reach people they'd never find through job boards or LinkedIn — people who aren't searching, but would move for the right role.
Companies see career summaries — seniority, domain, key strengths — without names, photos, schools, or demographic details. This isn't an add-on. It's how the system works. Better decisions, defensible process, and a more diverse shortlist without extra effort.
No more sorting through hundreds of similar or mismatched applications. No more relying on keyword filters that miss great people. Companies spend their time reviewing a curated list of candidates who were matched on substance — and that means they hire faster and hire better.
| What matters | Traditional hiring | Talent Match |
|---|---|---|
| What you review | Hundreds of CVs, most irrelevant | Ranked shortlist with match rationale |
| Matching method | Keyword filters, ATS scoring | Full career analysis, capability matching |
| Candidate pool | Only active applicants | Active and passive candidates |
| Time to shortlist | Days to weeks of screening | Shortlist delivered when role is posted |
| Bias mitigation | Optional, often inconsistent | Built into the process — anonymous until consent |
| Quality signal | CV formatting, keyword density | Actual experience and career trajectory |