"Should I send my CV as PDF or Word?" is one of the most-asked job-search questions, and most of the answers online are confidently wrong in both directions. The honest version: in 2026, both formats parse fine in modern systems. What actually breaks parsing is how the file was built, not its extension.
Let me give you the real answer, then the cases where it genuinely matters.
The short answer
For most applications, a properly built PDF is the safe default. It preserves your layout everywhere, can't be accidentally edited, and every current applicant tracking system can read text from a normal PDF.
The old advice to "always use Word because ATS can't read PDF" comes from systems that are now a decade out of date. Modern parsers handle PDF text without trouble. The exception is the one case below.
When to use Word instead
Use a .doc or .docx file in two situations:
- The job post explicitly asks for Word. Some companies, often in government, recruiting agencies, or older enterprises, run older systems or want to edit your file. If they ask, give them what they ask for. Following the instruction is part of the test.
- You're working through a recruiting agency. Agencies frequently reformat your CV into their own template before sending it on, and a Word file is easier for them to edit. Ask the recruiter; they'll usually tell you outright.
Outside those cases, default to PDF.
The PDF mistake that actually loses you the job
Here's the part the format debate misses entirely. Not all PDFs contain text. A PDF that's really an image, exported from a design tool, scanned, or saved as a picture, has no readable text at all. The ATS opens it, finds nothing, and you parse as a blank candidate.
This is the genuine risk, and it's invisible. Your CV looks perfect to you because your eyes read the image fine. The parser reads nothing.
The test: open your PDF and try to select a line of text with your cursor. If you can highlight it as text, the ATS can read it. If your cursor selects the whole page as one block, or selects nothing, it's an image and the ATS sees an empty file.
A CV exported as a text-based PDF from Word, Google Docs, or a proper CV builder passes this every time. One exported as a flattened image from Canva or a graphic design tool often fails it. The format said "PDF" both times; only one of them was readable.
What breaks parsing in either format
The extension is a small factor next to how the document is structured. These trip up parsers whether you send PDF or Word:
- Multi-column layouts, where text reads top-to-bottom in two columns. Parsers often read straight across and scramble your content.
- Text in headers, footers, or text boxes, which many parsers skip entirely. Keep your name and contact details in the main body, not the header.
- Tables used for layout, which can be read column-first and jumble your dates and job titles.
- Graphics and icons standing in for text, like a phone icon instead of the word "Phone", or a skill rendered as a progress bar.
Fix these and your CV parses cleanly in both PDF and Word. Ignore them and the format choice won't save you. The deeper rules of what an ATS can and can't read are worth understanding once, because they apply across every format and every system.
The practical rule
Build a single-column, text-based CV with standard headings and no layout tables. Save it as a text-based PDF. Switch to Word only when the application or recruiter asks. Run the cursor-select test before you send.
That covers more than nine in ten applications without a second thought. When you generate a CV from your LinkedIn with a tool like Postulit, you get text-based output by default, which sidesteps the image-PDF trap that quietly sinks so many otherwise-strong applications. The format question turns out to be the easy part. Building a file the machine can actually read is the part worth your attention.