Resume statistics, from the data.
Our AI has scored thousands of resumes — grades, Buzzword Density Scores, and job-fit matches. These are the patterns, packaged for citing. Every stat links to its full report and copies with attribution in one click.
Buzzword frequency
How often the most common corporate-fluff phrases appear across resumes scored by the Buzzword Density Score.
“Results-driven” appears on roughly 48% of resumes
The single most-flagged phrase in the dataset — nearly one in two resumes opens with it or works it into the summary.
“Team player” appears on roughly 44% of resumes
Recruiters see it about twice per five resumes. Nobody writes “I sabotage teams,” so the phrase carries zero signal.
“Passionate” appears on roughly 41% of resumes
Usually in the professional summary, usually followed by “about [industry].” “Detail-oriented” follows at ~37%, “innovative” at ~29%.
The median resume scores 45–60 out of 100 on buzzword density
Only about 1 in 6 resumes scores below 30 (substance-heavy), while roughly 1 in 8 scores above 75 — the zone where buzzwords outnumber achievements.
Quantification & bullet quality
Whether resumes prove their claims with numbers. Mostly, they don't.
The majority of resume bullets contain zero quantification
No percentage, no dollar figure, no timeframe, no scale indicator — the single most common failure across every industry and seniority level.
“Responsible for” or “duties included” appears on more than half of resumes
The clearest marker of duty-description rather than achievement. Resumes that quantify most bullets almost never grade below a B; resumes that quantify none almost never grade above a C.
“Improved efficiency” — with no actual numbers — appears on roughly a third of resumes
“Drove results” follows at ~27% and “made significant impact” at ~22%: claims shaped like accomplishments, containing no data.
Tailoring & job fit
How well resumes actually match the job descriptions they're submitted for.
The median resume-to-job-description fit score falls in the 55–68 range out of 100
Fewer than 1 in 5 matches scores above 80 — the “strong fit, expect a phone screen” zone. The most common gap is language, not experience.
AI-written resumes
The newest and fastest-moving pattern in the data.
AI-generated resumes tend to score worse on buzzword density than human-written ones
LLMs over-produce exactly the phrases recruiters skim past — “spearheaded,” “results-driven,” “leveraged.” The problem isn't AI; it's unedited AI.
Grades & length
Where resumes land when graded A+ through F, and whether length matters.
The plurality of resumes grade in the C range — competent but indistinguishable
A bell curve tilted toward mediocre: a minority earn A's, a meaningful tail earns D's and F's — usually because the resume works against the candidate, not because the person is unqualified.
Only about 1 in 10 resumes is genuinely too long (three-plus pages)
Length correlates only weakly with grade. A tight two-pager beats a padded one-pager; the length debate is largely a distraction from content quality.
Methodology note
These figures are directional estimates derived from patterns across resumes voluntarily submitted to RoastMyResume's AI tools. The sample is self-selected — people who chose to run their resume through an AI scoring tool — and analyzed by a consistent AI scoring system, not human reviewers.
This is not a peer-reviewed study. We report ranges and approximate proportions rather than precise statistics because the sample composition varies over time, and we'd rather be honestly directional than falsely precise. The full findings live in The State of the Resume 2026 and The 2026 Resume Buzzword Report.
Journalists and researchers: if you want to discuss the underlying patterns, reach out via @RoastMyResumeAI.
Want your own data point?
Every stat on this page started as one free roast. Get your letter grade and Buzzword Density Score in 30 seconds.
Roast My Resume — Free →