Keep your ATS CV template if it already produces the client-ready profiles your recruitment agency needs and your review process works. Consider candidate presentation software if recruiters repeatedly rebuild client layouts, correct exported files or prepare blind CVs by hand, or if client feedback gets lost across emails. The worksheet below helps you compare the two against your own submission requirements, rather than buying another tool for a different-looking document.
When is the ATS template enough?
An existing export deserves a place in the comparison. Starhunter's Word-template documentation, for example, describes uploading or selecting a Word template with placeholders and an agency logo, then generating a document from candidate data. Dedicated software is not the only route to a branded CV.
Start with a submission your team has approved. Does it contain the information the client asked for? Can the recruiter correct the content before sending it? Does a longer employment history still read well? If the template meets those requirements and everyone knows who approves the final version, keep it.
If your question is what belongs in the document, start with our guide to candidate profiles for clients. This comparison is about the next decision: which workflow produces that profile without recurring workarounds?
What still happens outside the export?
Write down the actual corrections from your last submission. “Formatting is slow” is hard to evaluate. “We rebuilt the project section after export” or “the approved Word file did not match the PDF we sent” gives you something to check.
Look at the work around the file as well as the file itself:
- Client-specific layouts: can you reuse a client's required fields and section order, or do you rebuild them for each submission?
- Recruiter corrections: where do you check dates, skills and the recruiter summary against the source CV?
- Disclosure: which details should appear in a branded profile, and which should be removed from a blind CV? Decide before preparing either version.
- Word and PDF: is the editable output useful, and does the final PDF match the approved content?
- Approval: who owns the final version when one person prepares the profile and another reviews it?
A dedicated workflow is worth evaluating when it addresses a specific recurring gap. Include its extra handoff in the comparison: if someone has to copy the same corrections back into the ATS, that work belongs on the worksheet too.
A keep-or-buy worksheet for your next demo
Use the same source CV, which you have permission to use for this purpose, in both workflows. Bring your agency template and one client's different layout. Compare the approved outputs, not just the preview on the demo screen.
Copy this entry for each check below:
Requirement: __________
Existing ATS workflow result: __________
Dedicated profile workflow result: __________
Manual corrections needed in each: __________
Reviewer and approval owner: __________
Accepted / not accepted for each: __________
1. Your agency layout and a client's layout
Produce both versions from the same candidate information. Check the logo, fields, section order and client-specific summary. Note whether a change updates a reusable template or only the file in front of you.
2. Long employment history and factual accuracy
Choose a profile with several roles and substantial project descriptions. Check page breaks and compare dates, responsibilities and skills with the source CV. Keep the recruiter's assessment identifiable as an assessment; do not turn it into experience the candidate never supplied.
3. Branded and blind versions
Set out which details may appear in each version, then check the finished files against that list. A polished layout does not tell you whether the disclosure choices are right.
4. Editable Word and final PDF
Make a change to a project description in Word. Follow the process through to the final PDF. Record where approval happens and how the team knows which file is ready to send.
5. A correction made by a second recruiter
Have one person prepare the profile and another make a factual correction. Note where that correction lives, who carries it through and which version reaches the client.
6. The shortlist and the client's response
Put several profiles together. Check how the client expresses interest in a particular candidate, where questions arrive and how the responsible recruiter follows up. Assess this separately from the document export.
Decision rule: keep the existing workflow if it meets your must-haves. Evaluate an addition for an observed recurring gap, and accept it only if the new handoff does not recreate the same work elsewhere.
The step after the CV: shortlist feedback
Exporting a good profile and collecting a response to a shortlist are separate jobs. You may already have both covered: ATZ CRM's candidate presentation page describes branded CVs, recruiter notes, client review and connected feedback within its ATS/CRM workflow.
Compare the process you actually use. Can the client find the right profiles? Is feedback attached to the relevant candidate? Does the recruiter have a clear reason and time to follow up? Do not add a second feedback process simply because it comes with a new document tool.
Where TalentVeil fits alongside your ATS
TalentVeil turns source CVs into editable branded candidate profiles and blind CVs, with PDF and Word export. It supports the preparation of the client submission rather than requiring you to replace your ATS. Integration routes include n8n, Make, Zapier and a custom API; walk through the specific handoff for your ATS and template. Our ATS integration guide explains those routes.
After preparing the profiles, share a curated shortlist in a branded client portal. The client reviews candidates, marks interest and leaves feedback there. The recruiter can see when the link is opened and receives notifications when the client views or acts. See shortlist sharing in TalentVeil for the step after the CV.
What should you bring to a demo?
Bring your completed worksheet and ask the supplier to demonstrate the requirement your current workflow cannot meet—for example, carrying an approved Word correction through to the final PDF.
If the existing ATS workflow already handles your requirements, keep it. Otherwise, explore TalentVeil’s candidate presentation features, then book a meeting to discuss your agency template and the requirements your ATS export does not meet.