Resume vs Portfolio vs Skill Graph: Which One Actually Gets Engineers Hired?
A three-way comparison of resumes, portfolios, and skill graphs for engineers. When each format works, where each fails, and how to combine them.
Skill Graph Team••9 min read
You know you should update your career documents. You have known for months. The resume is outdated, the portfolio site still shows that project from two years ago, and every time a recruiter reaches out, you scramble to pull something together that looks current.
Most engineers treat this as a packaging problem: pick the right format, polish the wording, done. But the real issue is that the three main formats for presenting your skills (resume, portfolio, skill graph) solve different problems. Using the wrong one for your situation wastes your time and weakens your application.
What Each Format Is Good At (and Bad At)
Compare them across the dimensions that actually matter in a hiring process.
Dimension
Resume
Portfolio
Skill Graph
ATS compatibility
Strong. Parsable text, keyword-matchable
Weak. Most ATS systems ignore URLs
Moderate. Exportable as structured data
Recruiter speed
6-second scan, familiar format
Slow. Requires clicking around
Ready to map your competitive advantage?
Stop guessing your next move. Visualize your skills, identify gaps, and grow with AI-powered guidance.
Fast. Visual hierarchy of skills and depth
Proof of depth
Weak. Claims without evidence
Strong for projects shown, silent on everything else
Strong. Each skill links to evidence
Skill relationships
None. Flat list
Implicit at best
Explicit. Dependencies and clusters visible
Update effort
Low. Edit a document
High. Redesign, redeploy, write case studies
Low. Add skills and evidence as you go
Interview prep value
Minimal
Moderate (talking points for showcased projects)
High. Maps directly to competency questions
None of these formats is universally better. The gap is in choosing the right one for the right stage.
Resumes: Still Necessary, Increasingly Insufficient
Resumes are not going away. They remain the entry ticket to most hiring processes because applicant tracking systems expect them, recruiters are trained to scan them, and job applications require them.
But the resume format has a structural problem: it rewards claims, not evidence.
A resume bullet like "Led migration of payment service to microservices architecture" tells a recruiter what you did but nothing about how well you did it, what tradeoffs you made, or whether you could do it again in a different context. Two engineers with identical resume bullets can have wildly different actual capability.
This gets worse every year. AI-generated resumes have made the signal-to-noise ratio worse. When every applicant's bullets sound polished and specific, the format stops differentiating. LinkedIn's Future of Recruiting 2024 report found that 73% of recruiting professionals now prioritize skills-based hiring over credential-based screening. The same problem that made AI-generated resumes a liability is accelerating this shift: if a format can be gamed easily, it stops being a useful signal.
When a resume works best: early-stage screening, ATS gatekeeping, and roles where the hiring process is traditional and high-volume.
Where it breaks down: senior roles where depth matters more than breadth, technical roles where "I know X" is not enough, and any situation where trust in claims is low.
Portfolios: Impressive but Narrow
A portfolio shows real work. That is its superpower and its limitation.
For frontend engineers, designers, and anyone whose output is visual, a portfolio is almost mandatory. Showing a recruiter a live project, a case study, or an interactive demo communicates competence faster than any bullet point.
But portfolios have blind spots that engineers underestimate:
They only show what you choose to show. If you built five projects but only two are portfolio-worthy, a recruiter sees two projects. The skills you used in the other three are invisible. Your debugging ability, your system design thinking, your collaboration patterns, your ability to learn new tools quickly: none of this shows up in a portfolio unless you explicitly write it up.
They age fast. A portfolio site built in 2024 with React 17 and no TypeScript sends a signal in 2026, and it is not the one you want. Maintaining a portfolio is a second job.
They favor certain roles. Backend engineers, data engineers, ML engineers, and infrastructure engineers rarely have visually demonstrable output. Their best work is a design document, a monitoring dashboard, or a latency improvement that only shows up in graphs. A portfolio site does not serve these roles well.
When a portfolio works best: roles with visual output (frontend, design, creative engineering), freelance work where clients need to see samples, and senior roles where a "greatest hits" project list adds credibility.
Where it breaks down: backend and infrastructure roles, roles where you cannot share proprietary work, and situations where breadth of capability matters more than showcase projects.
Skill Graphs: The Missing Layer
A skill graph maps your capabilities as a connected structure, not a flat list. Each skill has a depth rating, evidence links, and connections to related skills.
This matters because skills do not exist in isolation. Knowing Kubernetes is different from knowing Kubernetes in the context of CI/CD, monitoring, and incident response. A resume lists all four as separate items. A skill graph shows how they connect and where the depth varies.
For a practical look at how skill graphs compare to resumes structurally, read the Skill Graph vs Resume docs guide.
What makes this different from a resume or portfolio is that everything lives in one place. Your projects, your evidence, your skill connections, your depth ratings. A portfolio scatters this across case study pages and project demos. A skill graph collects it into a single profile that a recruiter can scan in seconds and an interviewer can use to prepare targeted questions.
Skills are linked to proof. Instead of claiming "proficient in Python," a skill graph node can point to a specific commit, a pull request, a blog post, or a project outcome. The recruiter does not have to take your word for it.
Your portfolio evidence gets structured. The projects and outcomes that would normally sit in a portfolio become evidence attached to specific skills. A recruiter sees the same proof, but organized by capability rather than by project. That makes it faster to assess whether a candidate covers the requirements for a specific role.
Skill gaps become visible. If you are targeting a machine learning engineering role and your graph shows strong Python and statistics but no deployment or MLOps experience, the gap is obvious. You can address it before applying rather than discovering it in an interview.
Interviewers can use it. A well-structured skill graph gives interviewers a map of what to probe. Instead of generic "tell me about a time" questions, they can ask about specific skills where you claimed high depth. This tends to produce better interviews for both sides.
When a skill graph works best: mid-career and senior engineers who need to communicate depth and breadth, career changers who need to show transferable skills with proof, and anyone preparing for competency-based interviews.
Where it falls short: if you have very little professional experience (a resume with education and internships is still fine), or if the hiring process is entirely ATS-driven with no human review before the phone screen.
The Real Question: When to Use Which
The answer depends on where you are in your career and what kind of role you are targeting.
Situation
Lead with
Supplement with
Applying to an ATS-heavy process (large company, high volume)
Resume (ATS-optimized)
Skill graph link in resume header
Applying to a startup or small team
Skill graph or portfolio
Resume as backup for HR records
Freelance or contract work
Portfolio with case studies
Resume for rate negotiation context
Targeting a specific role with clear competency requirements
Skill graph aligned to role requirements
Resume for ATS, portfolio for showcase projects
Career change (e.g. data analyst to ML engineer)
Skill graph showing transferable skills
Resume reframed around new role
Senior/staff-level roles
Skill graph showing depth and decision history
Portfolio for 2-3 signature projects
The common mistake is treating these as alternatives. They are layers. A resume gets you past the gate. A portfolio shows your best work. A skill graph proves your actual capability structure.
How to Combine Them Without Tripling Your Workload
The trick is to stop maintaining three separate artifacts. Build the skill graph first, because it captures everything: your skills, your evidence, your project outcomes, your depth levels. Once that exists, the resume and portfolio become views into it rather than standalone documents.
Build the skill graph first. Audit your skills honestly, rate your depth, and attach evidence (commits, project outcomes, writing, certifications). If you need a walkthrough, How to Build a Skill Graph covers the full process.
Generate the resume from the graph. Pick the 6-8 skills most relevant to your target role and write resume bullets around them. The evidence already in your skill graph gives you the specifics that make bullets credible.
Skip the standalone portfolio. Your skill graph already contains the project evidence a portfolio would show, organized by skill rather than by project. If a role specifically asks for a portfolio (frontend, design), link 2-3 standout projects. For everything else, your skill graph profile is the portfolio.
Share one link. Put your skill graph URL in your resume header and LinkedIn bio. Recruiters who want more depth get a structured, scannable profile instead of a static PDF or an outdated portfolio site.
The Industry Shift Toward Skills-Based Evidence
This is not just a theory. The data on how hiring is changing is clear.
According to TestGorilla's 2024 State of Skills-Based Hiring report, 81% of employers now use some form of skills-based hiring, up from 73% in 2023 and 57% in 2022. Of those employers, 92% say it helps them identify more qualified candidates, and 90% report a reduction in mis-hires.
McKinsey research supports the shift from a different angle: skills are five times more predictive of job performance than education credentials alone.
But there is a gap between intent and execution. A 2024 Harvard Business School and Burning Glass Institute analysis found that while 85% of companies discuss skills-based hiring, fewer than 1 in 700 actual hires were impacted by degree requirement removal. Companies want to hire for skills, but most still lack the tooling to verify those skills efficiently.
This is exactly the gap that structured skill profiles fill. A resume tells a hiring manager what someone claims. A portfolio tells them what someone chose to show. A skill graph tells them how a candidate maps their own capabilities, backed by evidence, which is what competency-based interviews actually test.
What to Do This Week
Pick the action that matches your timeline:
If you are actively applying now: make sure your resume is tight. Add a link to a skill graph in the header. Even a partially built graph signals self-awareness about your capabilities.
If you are preparing for a job search in 1-3 months: build the skill graph first. Audit your skills, attach evidence, identify gaps. Then use it to rewrite your resume bullets with real specifics.
If you are not job searching but want to stay ready: update your skill graph quarterly. It takes 20 minutes and means you are never starting from scratch when an opportunity appears.
The format wars are a distraction. What matters is whether a recruiter can trust your claims. The engineers who are getting hired fastest are the ones who make that trust easy to verify.
