Should you screen CVs manually or use AI? Here's an honest comparison to help you decide what's right for your team.
After reviewing 30+ CVs, attention drops and good candidates get missed. Studies show reviewer accuracy decreases by 50% after the first hour.
Different reviewers apply different standards. The same CV might be shortlisted by one recruiter and rejected by another.
Senior recruiters spend 60% of their time on screening instead of high-value activities like candidate engagement and hiring manager alignment.
When candidates ask why they weren't shortlisted, you can't provide a clear answer. This creates compliance risk and poor candidate experience.
| Aspect | Manual Screening | AI Screening (Marxel) |
|---|---|---|
| Time per CV | 5-7 minutes average | < 10 seconds✓ |
| 100 CVs screening time | 8-12 hours | < 20 minutes✓ |
| Consistency | Varies by reviewer fatigue, time of day | 100% consistent criteria application✓ |
| Criteria tracking | Mental checklist or spreadsheet | Explicit rubric with weighted criteria✓ |
| Bias risk | Higher - unconscious bias, fatigue effects | Lower - criteria-based evaluation only✓ |
| Candidate explanations | Rarely documented | Auto-generated for every candidate✓ |
| Nuanced judgment | Strong - can read between lines✓ | Good - but may miss subtle signals |
| Unusual candidates | Better at spotting non-traditional fits✓ | May require manual review |
| Setup time | None✓ | 10-15 minutes to define rubric |
| Cost (100 CVs) | £200-400 in recruiter time | £0-15 depending on plan✓ |
✓ indicates advantage in that category
Most successful teams don't choose one or the other. They use AI for the initial screen, then apply human judgment where it matters most.
Try Marxel free with your next batch of CVs. No credit card required. Screen up to 25 CVs per month on the Free plan.
For high-volume roles (50+ applications), AI screening is typically faster, more consistent, and more cost-effective. For senior/executive roles with few applications, manual review may be preferred. Many teams use AI for initial screening, then manual review for shortlisted candidates.
AI screens against your defined criteria, so it won't miss candidates who match your requirements. However, it may not spot non-traditional candidates who could be great fits despite not matching typical criteria. That's why we recommend human review of the 'Potential' and 'Hold' buckets.
On average, teams report 80-90% time savings. Screening 100 CVs manually takes 8-12 hours. With AI, the same batch processes in under 20 minutes, with results ready for human review.
AI screening based on explicit criteria is generally less biased than manual screening, which can be affected by fatigue, mood, and unconscious bias. However, biased criteria will produce biased results. Marxel lets you review and adjust criteria before processing.
Yes, and we recommend it. Use AI to quickly categorise candidates into buckets, then focus manual review time on promising candidates and edge cases. This gives you speed without sacrificing judgment.
Every Marxel screening includes an explanation of why each candidate was placed in their bucket. You can easily move candidates between buckets and the AI learns from your corrections over time.
We use cookies for analytics and to improve your experience.