| Role | Score | Fit level | Top gap | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No saved scenarios yet. Calculate once, then click “Save scenario”. | ||||
| Role | Score | Fit |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst — Remote | 82 | Strong fit |
| Manager — Onsite | 68 | Moderate fit |
| Startup — Equity heavy | 74 | Good fit |
| Enterprise — Slow growth | 59 | Borderline |
Fit scoring reduces decision noise
A job choice improves when you quantify tradeoffs. This calculator converts subjective impressions into a weighted score, so enthusiasm, pressure, and salary headlines do not dominate the decision. By rating each criterion and assigning importance weights, you create a repeatable rubric that can be reused across roles, industries, and career stages. The result is a transparent record of why a role feels right or wrong. It also helps you explain decisions to stakeholders and reduces second‑guessing when multiple offers compete in real time.
Weights reflect your current priorities
Weights represent what you will defend after the honeymoon period. If growth and mentorship are non‑negotiable, higher weights amplify their impact on the final score. If commute is tolerable, a lower weight keeps it from distorting the outcome. Normalization keeps totals comparable even when you change weights, and it prevents “more sliders” from automatically producing a higher score. Review weights quarterly to match evolving goals.
Interpreting the match score bands
A score above 75 suggests strong alignment, but still validate expectations with a written 30‑60‑90 plan and clear success metrics. Scores between 55 and 75 often indicate a workable role with one or two controllable gaps, such as unclear performance metrics, limited flexibility, or compensation structure. Scores below 55 flag misalignment or risk that may require renegotiation, a different team, or targeted skill building before accepting.
Finding and fixing the biggest gaps
The breakdown highlights contributions and the highest weighted gaps. Focus on one gap that is both important and improvable, like skills match or team culture clarity. Convert that gap into actions: request a shadowing session, ask for examples of recent projects, or confirm how feedback is delivered. If the gap is compensation, model alternative packages and decide your walk‑away point in advance.
Using scenarios to compare offers fairly
Saving scenarios helps you compare opportunities on the same scale. Keep ratings evidence‑based by tying each score to interviews, written role descriptions, and peer feedback. Re-score after new information arrives, and export CSV or PDF for discussions with mentors or family. Over time, saved scenarios reveal patterns, such as which environments consistently deliver higher fit and satisfaction.
1) What does a “weight” mean?
A weight shows how important a criterion is to you. Higher weights increase its impact on the final score after automatic normalization.
2) Should I use the 1–5 or 1–10 scale?
Use 1–5 for quick comparisons and 1–10 when you have strong evidence and want finer distinctions between similar roles.
3) How do I rate “team culture” objectively?
Tie the rating to signals: interview consistency, decision-making clarity, meeting cadence, feedback style, and examples of how conflict was handled.
4) What score is “good enough” to accept?
Many candidates accept at 65–75 when gaps are controllable. Aim higher if you have options, or if a low-scoring gap is non‑negotiable.
5) Can a low score become high later?
Yes, if the gaps are addressable: training, scope changes, remote options, or compensation fixes. Re-score after you negotiate or gain new information.
6) How should I use exports?
Export CSV for tracking multiple roles over time, and PDF for a clean summary to review with mentors, partners, or during negotiation planning.