The Average Job Opening Now Gets 242 Applications (And a 0.4% Chance of Landing It)

A 0.4% Chance. That’s What You’re Working With.

For every job you apply to in 2026, there are roughly 241 other people doing the exact same thing.

According to Business Insider data cited by Novorésumé in a February 12, 2026 analysis, the average job opening now receives 242 applications. That translates to a 0.4% success rate for any individual applicant. And that number isn’t inflated by a few outlier postings. Glassdoor’s data puts the corporate average at 250 applications per role, which means this isn’t a spike. It’s the new baseline.

To put that in perspective: just five years ago, a typical job posting attracted roughly 100 applications. The number has more than doubled, and the reasons behind that surge are reshaping the entire hiring process in ways most job seekers don’t fully realize.

What’s driving this explosion? It’s not that there are dramatically more job seekers. It’s that AI tools have made it trivially easy to generate and submit applications at a volume that would have been physically impossible a few years ago. And that volume is creating a cascading crisis that’s hurting everyone involved.

By the end of this article, you’ll see exactly how AI is driving application overload, why employers are responding with trust-based hiring shifts, and what the data says about where this is all heading.

The Application Tsunami: 11,000 Per Minute

The scale of the problem becomes clearer when you zoom out from individual job postings to the platforms that host them.

LinkedIn now processes an average of 11,000 job applications per minute. According to reporting by The New York Times, that represents a 45% year-over-year increase, driven largely by generative AI tools that allow candidates to tailor and submit applications at machine speed.

That’s not job seekers carefully customizing their materials. That’s AI agents and automation tools doing the heavy lifting. Services like LazyApply and other auto-apply bots allow candidates to submit hundreds of applications per day without ever reading the job description. The result is a flood of applications that look polished on the surface but carry little genuine intent behind them.

Consider this real-world example from the Times reporting: HR consultant Katie Tanner received over 1,200 applications for a single remote role. She was so overwhelmed that she pulled the listing entirely and spent three months sorting through submissions.

The numbers behind the surge:

• 45% increase in applications submitted through LinkedIn year-over-year
• 11,000 applications per minute processed on the platform
• 74% of U.S. job seekers personally use AI in their application process, according to the Greenhouse 2025 AI in Hiring Report
• 49% of U.S. job seekers apply to more positions specifically to get past automated filters

Greenhouse CEO Daniel Chait described the dynamic as a “doom loop” where both sides keep escalating. Candidates use AI to apply to more jobs, so employers use AI to filter more aggressively, so candidates use even more AI to get through, and the cycle accelerates.

Interview Guys Take: This is the most important thing to understand about the 242 number. It doesn’t mean 242 qualified candidates are competing for every role. A huge chunk of those applications are AI-generated noise from people who may not have even read the posting. The problem is that your carefully tailored application is now buried under that noise, and the systems designed to sort through it can’t tell the difference. Volume is not your friend in this market.

The Trust Crisis: Both Sides Are Losing Faith

The application flood has created something more damaging than a volume problem. It’s created a trust problem.

The Greenhouse 2025 AI in Hiring Report, which surveyed over 4,100 job seekers, recruiters, and hiring managers across four countries, found that trust between candidates and employers has essentially collapsed on both sides.

From the employer side:

• 91% of U.S. hiring managers have caught or suspected AI-driven candidate misrepresentation
• 39% are conducting more in-person interviews specifically to verify candidate authenticity
• 68% of hiring managers say they’re more personally involved in hiring than they were last year
• 34% of recruiters spend up to half their week filtering spam and junk applications
• 32% have encountered fake voices or backgrounds during video interviews
• 18% have dealt with suspected deepfakes in the hiring process

From the job seeker side:

• 55% suspect AI is being used to evaluate their applications without being told
• Only 8% of job seekers consider AI-driven hiring decisions to be fair
• 87% say it’s important for employers to be transparent about their AI use
• 36% have used AI to alter their appearance, voice, or background during video interviews

The picture is one of mutual suspicion. Employers don’t trust that applications represent real people with real skills. Job seekers don’t trust that their applications are being evaluated fairly or even seen by a human. And both sides are responding by doubling down on the very AI tools that created the distrust in the first place.

Research firm Gartner has projected that by 2028, roughly 1 in 4 job applicants could be fraudulent. That’s not a typo. One in four.

Interview Guys Take: The 39% stat about more in-person interviews is genuinely significant. For years, the trend in hiring has been toward automation, remote screening, and speed. The fact that nearly 4 in 10 hiring managers are actually adding friction back into the process, slowing things down to verify who they’re actually talking to, tells you how serious the authenticity problem has become. If you’re a job seeker, this is actually good news. More human touchpoints in the process mean more opportunities for genuine candidates to stand out.

The Resume Is Losing Its Grip

Perhaps the most significant long-term consequence of the AI application flood is what it’s doing to the resume itself as a hiring tool.

The Willo Hiring Trends Report 2026, which drew on responses from over 100 hiring professionals worldwide and insights from 2.5 million candidate interviews, found that the resume’s dominance is weakening faster than most people realize.

The key findings:

• Only 37% of employers now view credentials and learning history (as typically outlined in resumes) as reliable indicators of talent
• 41% of respondents are actively moving away from resume-first hiring
• 10% have largely replaced resumes with skills-based and scenario-driven assessments
• 77% of hiring teams regularly encounter AI-generated or AI-assisted applications
• 47% have updated interview techniques to focus on deeper probing and behavioral questions
• 31% have added practical steps to their interview processes
• 0% of respondents believe automation should handle all stages of hiring

As Willo CEO Euan Cameron put it, resumes used to tell a story of effort, experience, and aptitude. Now they often reflect how well someone can prompt a large language model. Great candidates are getting lost in a wall of near-identical applications.

This tracks with what Robert Half found in its December 2025 survey: among job seekers currently between jobs, 59% cited too much competition as a major pain point, and 68% expected their job search to take longer than previous searches.

Interview Guys Take: The decline of resume-first hiring doesn’t mean resumes don’t matter. It means they matter differently. A resume that reads like AI wrote it (because AI did write it) now actively works against you. Hiring teams are looking for signals of authenticity, specificity, and genuine experience that AI-generated content struggles to replicate. The irony is thick: in a market flooded with AI-polished applications, the most effective resume strategy may be the one that sounds the most unmistakably human.

What the “Doom Loop” Actually Looks Like

The AI application crisis has created a feedback loop that’s making the hiring process worse for everyone involved. Here’s how it plays out in practice:

• Step 1: Volume spikes. AI tools make it easy for candidates to apply to hundreds of jobs. Application counts per posting jump from 100 to 242 or higher.

• Step 2: Employers add filters. To cope with volume, companies deploy more aggressive ATS screening, keyword matching, and AI-powered ranking tools. Applications that don’t hit exact criteria get filtered out instantly.

• Step 3: Candidates optimize harder. Seeing low response rates, job seekers use AI to stuff their resumes with keywords, mirror job descriptions verbatim, and submit even more applications to compensate.

• Step 4: Signal collapses. With every application optimized to look the same, recruiters can no longer distinguish between a genuinely strong candidate and one who simply prompted ChatGPT effectively. As Greenhouse’s data showed, the applications start to blur together.

• Step 5: Employers add human checkpoints. In-person interviews increase. Skills tests get added. Behavioral questioning gets deeper. The process gets longer and more complex for everyone.

• Step 6: Candidates burn out. The Robert Half data shows the toll: 72% of job seekers report negative mental health impacts from extended hiring processes and poor communication. And 59% say competition itself is now the primary source of frustration.

This is what Greenhouse CEO Daniel Chait calls the “AI doom loop.” Both sides keep escalating. Neither side is happy. And the traditional mechanisms that used to connect qualified candidates with the right opportunities are straining under the weight of it all.

Where This Leaves Job Seekers in 2026

The 242 applications-per-opening stat is a market signal, not a death sentence. But it does require a clear-eyed look at what’s actually happening.

The spray-and-pray era is dying. When everyone can submit hundreds of AI-generated applications, doing the same thing doesn’t give you an edge. It makes you part of the noise. The data consistently shows that targeted, tailored applications outperform mass submissions, even in a market this competitive.

Authenticity has become a competitive advantage. With 91% of hiring managers flagging AI misrepresentation and 39% adding in-person verification steps, the ability to demonstrate genuine capability and personality now carries more weight than a perfectly optimized keyword list.

The process is getting longer, not shorter. More interview rounds, more skills assessments, more behavioral probing. This isn’t going away. It’s the natural response to a market where employers can’t trust what they see on paper.

Referrals matter more than ever. In a market where automated applications generate noise, a human referral that bypasses the AI-vs-AI screening layer becomes exponentially more valuable. One data point from Novorésumé’s research: referrals increase the chance of a successful job match from 2.6% to 6.6%, meaning a referred candidate is more than twice as likely to land the role.

The Bottom Line

The job market has entered genuinely uncharted territory. A 0.4% success rate per application. 11,000 submissions per minute on a single platform. Nearly half of all employers actively rethinking whether resumes even work anymore.

This isn’t a temporary disruption. It’s the beginning of a structural shift in how people get hired. The old playbook of polish your resume, blast it out, and wait for callbacks is colliding with an AI-powered volume machine that has made that approach nearly obsolete.

The job seekers who will cut through the noise are the ones who stop competing on volume and start competing on signal. In a world of 242 identical applications, being the one that sounds like a real human might be the most powerful differentiator of all.

---