Seek, TradeMe, and LinkedIn all match jobs to people using keywords, matching words in a CV to words in a job ad. EMeetE reads and digests both in full, checks the requirements that actually matter, gives the match a score out of 100 and tells you why a job is or isn't a fit. That's the entire difference, and it changes everything.
| Approach | Seek / TradeMe / LinkedIn | EMeetE |
|---|---|---|
| Matching method | Keyword and title overlap | Full CV and job description read and digested, scored 0–100 with clear stated reasoning |
| Hard requirements | Not distinguished from preferences | Location, experience, certification, and visa requirements checked before scoring |
| Overqualification | Not considered will blindly show junior roles to senior candidates | Flagged explicitly, and can be adjusted per user |
| Duplicate listings | Same role often shown multiple times across sources | One canonical listing per real job, regardless of source |
| Why a job matched | Not shown | Plain-language reasoning on every result |
| Search precision | Fixed keyword search | No search bar. You've already done the hard work in your CV. A single sliding scale shows your exact-match to open-to-anything |
| Cost to job seekers | Free to search, but time cost is high (see below) | Free |
| Cost to employers | Expensive job listings that results in hundreds of unvetted CV's (see below) | Receive a focussed list of actual potential applicants |
Over a couple of weeks, we collected every job Seek, TradeMe and LinkedIn actively recommended to a real, detailed 20+ year graphic designer and project management CV. Not jobs we searched for, jobs their own algorithms chose to push and recommend. Then we scored all 150 properly; hard requirements checked first, domain and seniority fit assessed honestly, no keyword shortcuts.
Jobs recommended by Seek, TradeMe and LinkedIn's own algorithms.
Genuine strong match. One other result scored over 75. It was the same job, posted twice.
The 'recommendations' included: a drainlaying role (2/100, zero trade skills or experience), a mining processing supervisor (2/100, no mining industry background whatsoever), a mechanical maintenance engineer (2/100), an architectural builder/carpenter (2/100), and a commercial drone pilot requiring a CAA licence the candidate has never held (4/100).
One role, a delivery lead position at a healthcare provider, was recommended three separate times: twice via LinkedIn, once via TradeMe. Same job, same employer, counted as three different opportunities.
New Zealand's unemployment rate hit 5.6% in the June 2026 quarter. This is the highest in 11 years, with 166,500 people out of work and 440,000 underutilised. Job seekers in this market are routinely submitting well over a hundred applications per listing. The platforms charging employers to post into that volume have no incentive to make the matching any more precise than a keyword search; the fee is the same either way.
It costs employers too. Every one of those hundred-plus applications lands on someone's desk, and most of it is exactly this kind of noise; candidates who were never a genuine fit, sorted by a keyword match rather than an actual read of the role. Hiring managers lose real hours to it, on top of everything else the job already asks of them. Nobody currently paying for a listing is being served well either.
Overlapping roles, freelance work alongside permanent jobs, and genuine timeline gaps are handled explicitly, not summed up incorrectly.
A missing degree, certification, or work-visa requirement weighs heavily on the score before anything else is considered. Strong skill history can't distract from a genuine disqualifier.
Being significantly overqualified for a junior role is treated as a real mismatch, with the option to turn this down explicitly if you're genuinely open to it.
Every match includes the specific detailed summary behind the score. What fits, what's a genuine gap and what would need to change.