Is it better for an employer to receive too many or too few job applications?

When the labor market was tight, employers worked hard at creating a more candidate-friendly application process, which typically meant asking candidates fewer questions to help increase the number of job applications.

Now, many are complaining that they’re receiving too many job applications. We reached out to 10 hiring experts to ask for their opinions. We asked them whether it is better to have too many or too few applications. When you think of jobs for which you had too many applications, why did you feel there were too many? Is it better to effectively pay more per application to get fewer but higher quality? Or is it better to invest in better technology to better rank or score applications so you spend more time with better-qualified candidates and less time on those who aren’t as well qualified?

• Focused Job Descriptions Attract Quality Candidates
• Prioritize Quality Over Quantity in Hiring
• Refine Process to Attract Mission-Aligned Talent
• Balance Application Volume with Efficient Screening
• Strategic Sourcing Yields Manageable Talent Pool
• Curated Hiring Process Enhances Long-Term Success
• Structured Applications Reduce Legal Risks
• Tighten Job Ads to Attract Ideal Candidates
• Targeted Listings Save Time and Resources
• Smart Filters Streamline Hiring Process

Focused Job Descriptions Attract Quality Candidates

I’ve found that an overwhelming number of applicants often indicates that the job description is too vague. When expectations, responsibilities, and must-haves aren’t clearly defined, the role starts to sound like it could be a fit for almost anyone, and that’s exactly what you get: a pile of generic, mismatched applications. A more focused posting acts like a filter, not a wall. It doesn’t just attract the right candidates; it politely signals to everyone else that this probably isn’t for them, saving time on both ends.

We learned this the hard way. Every time we’ve put out a job post with broad language like “self-starter” or “motivated individual,” we were flooded with resumes from people who didn’t align with our values, didn’t meet the core skill requirements, or clearly hadn’t read the full description. Once we started being specific about what the role really required, who we actually wanted, and what success looked like, it was like flipping a switch. The volume dropped, but the quality went way up.

Specificity forces clarity, not just for applicants, but for you as the employer. It sharpens your internal vision of what you’re building and who should be on that journey with you. And while it may feel counterintuitive to “narrow the field” in a competitive job market, the truth is, clarity creates momentum. Less noise, more clarity: that’s how you build the right team from the start.

Sean Smith, CEO & ex Head of HR, Alpas Wellness

Prioritize Quality Over Quantity in Hiring

When employers are inundated with applications, the issue isn’t the volume, but rather the time wasted sifting through low-quality candidates who were never a suitable fit to begin with. That’s why I would always prefer fewer, higher-quality applicants, even if it means paying slightly more per application through targeted job boards, stronger employer branding, or better job descriptions. It saves time, accelerates hiring, and leads to stronger retention.

An excess of applications only becomes problematic when there’s no reliable way to filter them. If your process can’t prioritize genuine qualifications over keyword-matching, your best candidates are likely getting lost in the noise while your team wastes hours reviewing irrelevant resumes.

This is where improved filtering technology can make a significant difference, especially when combined with smarter screening criteria and clear job expectations. Quality always scales better than quantity when the goal is long-term fit.

Being candidate-friendly doesn’t have to mean frictionless. It should mean intentional, where the right people apply, the wrong ones are filtered out, and hiring teams aren’t buried under a pile of noise.

Stephen Greet, CEO & Co-Founder, BeamJobs

Refine Process to Attract Mission-Aligned Talent

The moment we shifted to higher-quality sources for candidates, everything changed. It felt less like casting a wide net hoping to get lucky, and more like having meaningful conversations with people already aligned with our values. We stopped trying to attract everyone and instead focused on attracting the right ones. That shift didn’t just make hiring easier; it made it feel purposeful.

When you’re hiring for culture as much as skill, you start to realize that alignment can’t be mass-produced. You can’t automate chemistry. You can’t fake mission fit. But what you can do is refine your process to speak more clearly to the kind of people who thrive in your environment, and that starts with choosing the right platforms and asking better questions up front.

Once we made that change, we weren’t buried under applications anymore. We had fewer candidates, yes, but we had more real conversations. Interviews felt more like mutual exploration and less like filtering. That energy carried forward into stronger onboarding, better retention, and a clearer sense of who belonged on the team.

You don’t need hundreds of resumes to find someone great; you need one person who feels called to the work. I’ve found that narrowing the funnel doesn’t mean lowering the bar; it raises it. It demands that you get clear on your values and communicate them consistently. And when you do that, the right people find you.

Maddy Nahigyan, Chief Operating Officer, Ocean Recovery

Balance Application Volume with Efficient Screening

Remember not so long ago when the job market felt incredibly tight? Employers were bending over backward, streamlining application processes, and asking fewer questions, all in a concerted effort to attract more candidates and widen their talent pool. Fast forward to today, and the pendulum has swung dramatically for many. The common refrain now isn’t about scarcity but being overwhelmed by too many applications. It begs the question: is it better to grapple with a flood of applicants or wish for fewer?

Neither extreme is truly ideal. Having too few applications is problematic; you might miss out on the perfect hire simply because they never saw or completed your application. You lack choice and might be forced to compromise on qualifications. However, the complaint about “too many” applications isn’t just about having options; it stems from the practical challenge of managing the sheer volume. Think of it like panning for gold. Having a whole riverbed potentially full of gold sounds excellent. However, if you only have a small pan and limited time, sifting through tons of gravel and mud to find a few nuggets is incredibly inefficient and exhausting. When recruiters face hundreds or even thousands of applications for one position, reviewing each one, even superficially, consumes enormous time and resources. There’s a real risk that truly qualified candidates – the gold nuggets – get lost in the deluge of unfit candidates, simply because the team is swamped. “Too many” feels like a genuine problem because it strains resources and can paradoxically make finding the right person harder.

Faced with this flood, some might consider reverting to older tactics, making the application process more demanding again. The logic is that adding more questions or steps acts as a filter. Candidates who aren’t truly serious or qualified might drop off, leaving a smaller, supposedly higher-quality pool. In essence, you’re “paying” more per application regarding the candidate’s time and effort, hoping this investment screens people for you. However, this carries its own risks. You might inadvertently screen out excellent candidates who are passively looking, short on time, or put off by jumping through hoops. You might filter for endurance rather than skill.

The alternative isn’t necessarily to reduce the number of applicants hitting your inbox but to become much better at sorting through them efficiently. Investing in better technology offers a compelling path forward.

Steve Fleurant, CEO, Clair Services

Strategic Sourcing Yields Manageable Talent Pool

When an application pool is large, it can be overwhelming for recruiters to sift through each one and spot standout candidates. On the other hand, having too few applicants can be a sign of low job visibility, an unattractive job description, or high qualifications that discourage applicants from applying. In both scenarios, either time-to-fill or cost-per-hire may increase as recruiters need to spend more time reviewing applications or the company needs to invest in additional outreach efforts to attract candidates.

If you pay for more applications, you may bring in a more concentrated pool of serious and qualified candidates that align closely with the job’s essential requirements. But this approach can become expensive, particularly if the quality of applicants falls short of expectations. Additionally, it may result in a reduced number of overall applicants, potentially limiting diversity and options in the selection process.

Ultimately, companies are faced with the choice of whether or not to invest in technology that can improve the efficiency of screening and ranking applications. This should give recruiters time back in their work by prioritizing high-quality candidates without manually reviewing each one, as the systems will automatically rank applicants based on match rates, keywords, or experience as it relates to the job posting. Using AI, however, relies heavily on proper setup and recruiter training, and can potentially introduce bias if not calibrated correctly for the posting.

The ideal approach is a balance between investing in technology to efficiently manage applications and strategically sourcing candidates to ensure a manageable pool of high-quality applicants.

Grant Smith, Global Recruitment Marketing Specialist

Curated Hiring Process Enhances Long-Term Success

I have experience with both approaches: spending more to attract fewer applicants and using tools to sort high volumes of applications. The former consistently yields better results in terms of team fit and employee longevity. When we’ve invested more per application, the entire process felt more intentional, from how candidates presented themselves to how confident we felt in bringing them on board. The applicants were more aligned with our goals, better prepared, and more likely to be genuinely interested in the company’s mission, not just the compensation.

Sorting through countless resumes might feel productive initially, but it often leads to mental fatigue and decision burnout. The more time spent filtering, the easier it becomes to overlook an exceptional candidate or settle for someone who’s merely “good enough.” This is where I’ve observed suboptimal hires slipping through, not because they were unqualified, but because we were too overwhelmed to evaluate clearly. When attempting to scan hundreds of nearly identical applications, everything starts to blend together, and that instinctive spark you look for in a candidate can get lost in the noise.

Investing more in a curated, intentional hiring process might seem like a larger upfront cost, but it pays dividends in clarity, speed, and retention. I would much rather focus on five high-quality applicants I can deeply engage with than waste energy sifting through 100 potential candidates who don’t quite match the role or the company’s values. In the long run, it’s not about filling the position fastest; it’s about finding someone who will thrive in the role for the longest time.

Saralyn Cohen, CEO, Able To Change Recovery

Structured Applications Reduce Legal Risks

As an employment attorney representing employees across Mississippi for over 20 years, I’ve seen both sides of this recruitment challenge. When employers implement overly simplified application processes, they often end up with candidates who aren’t properly vetted for the position, leading to poor hiring decisions and potential discrimination claims down the line.

In my practice, I’ve observed that companies with the lowest turnover and fewest employment disputes typically use a balanced approach – structured applications with job-specific qualifications that naturally filter candidates without creating unnecessary barriers. One client reduced their wrongful termination claims by 40% after implementing a more thorough initial screening process that clearly communicated job requirements and company culture.

The question isn’t really about “too many” versus “too few” applications – it’s about appropriate matching. From my litigation experience, employers who rush to fill positions without proper screening face substantially higher legal risks. I’ve represented numerous employees who were hired through hasty processes only to face performance issues because the position wasn’t what was represented.

My recommendation is to invest in better qualification processes rather than paying more per application. Ensure your application clearly communicates essential job functions, reasonable accommodations available, and workplace expectations. This transparency not only improves candidate quality but also helps establish legal compliance from the start of the employment relationship.

Nick Norris, Partner, Watson Norris, PLLC

Tighten Job Ads to Attract Ideal Candidates

Too many applications can slow you down. It sounds like a good problem but pulls time and energy into sorting through noise. We’ve had job openings where over 100 people applied, but only a handful were qualified. This clogs the system. We’d rather pay more per application and get a higher percentage of serious candidates who understand the role.

We’ve started using better filtering tools and application questions that flag top performers early. That’s made a big difference. Investing in technology to sort and score applicants is smart, but the bigger win is tightening up your job ads and process so you attract who you want in the first place. Quality beats volume every time.

Joel Miller, President, Miller Pest & Termite

Targeted Listings Save Time and Resources

Last year, I was hiring for a junior 3D visualization artist. We posted the role with a short form to keep it approachable, thinking it would save time and encourage more applicants to get through the door. We ended up with over 230 applications in five days. Out of those, only 15 had any real alignment with our workflows or software stack. The rest of the submissions blended together, offering generic portfolios, cookie-cutter resumes, and no indication that the applicants had taken the time to understand our output or the expectations of the role they were applying for.

It wasn’t the volume that made it unmanageable. It was the lack of context. I spent many hours trying to separate strong candidates from the ones who clearly hadn’t read past the job title. That experience shifted how I think about hiring. I would rather pay more to target better-aligned applicants upfront. If that means 40 quality submissions instead of 200 generic ones, I’ll take it. The time saved and the quality of conversations on day one make the difference worth every dollar.

Better technology does help with sorting, but it still works on what you feed into it. If the top of your funnel is too open, no filter is going to fix the problem entirely. A better move is to structure your listing to naturally filter out mismatched applicants. One detailed, role-specific question can do more to qualify a candidate than an entire stack of screening tools. This shift kept my hiring process grounded and efficient without getting buried again.

Alex Smith, Marketing Specialist, Manager & Co-Owner, Render3DQuick.com

Smart Filters Streamline Hiring Process

I’ll take too few good applications over a hundred bad ones every time. We once opened the floodgates with a wide-reach job blast, got 180 resumes, three showed up for interviews, and only one made it past week two. Why? Because most of them didn’t realize turf work means heat, precision, and lifting 50-pound rolls all day. We lost two weeks and still had to rent backup labor.

Now we invest in smarter filters, using questions like, “Can you name three tools used in turf installs?” or “Have you worked in direct sun for 8+ hours?” We pay more per click, but our show rate doubled, and our average install redo rate dropped. We also flag any applicant who mentions NFL field work; that tells us they’ve read our site and know the stakes. Pay for fewer, better ones, and your boots hit the lawn faster.

Bennett Barrier, Chief Executive Officer, DFW Turf Solutions