Indeed returned sometimes as high of a 10–20% response rate across applications spanning multiple industries and career levels, hinting job seekers where they should invest their time.
For someone looking for work, a job application platform’s value comes down to whether applications lead to meaningful contact with employers.
Presence News conducted an informal comparison of applications to jobs listed on LinkedIn and Indeed. Applications covered entry-level, mid-level, senior and executive positions across various industries.
The reported difference was substantial: LinkedIn applications returned an employer response rate below 1%, while Indeed applications returned a response rate of sometimes as high as 10–20%.
Based on that experience, Presence News does not recommend LinkedIn as a primary job application platform. Indeed produced substantially more employer responses in this comparison, making it the stronger option for allocating application time.
What Presence News Observed
The reported results were:
| Platform | Reported employer response rate |
|---|---|
| LinkedIn Jobs | Below 1% |
| Indeed | Approximately 10–20% |
Expressed per 100 applications, those rates correspond to fewer than one employer response through LinkedIn, compared with approximately 10–20 through Indeed. These figures illustrate the reported percentages; they are not the comparison’s actual application counts.
For an applicant spending time reviewing requirements, adapting a résumé and completing application forms, that gap matters. A platform that produces more employer contact offers more opportunities to move the hiring process forward.
However, an employer response is not necessarily an interview, an offer or a hire. This comparison reports responses and does not establish separate interview or hiring rates.
The figures also do not establish an exact “100 times better” result. Calculating a precise multiplier requires the underlying application and response counts for both platforms.
Low Response Rates Raise Questions—but Do Not Explain the Cause
Repeatedly applying without hearing back can leave job seekers questioning whether advertised positions are genuinely available.
One concern is the existence of “ghost jobs”: listings that appear to offer an opening even though the employer has no immediate intention of filling it. Indeed says its policies require postings to represent a real employer actively hiring for a specific role, and that it removes listings when it learns they lack legitimate hiring intent.
LinkedIn offers job verification badges that indicate confirmed information about a company or job poster. Such verification can help establish identity, but does not by itself demonstrate that an application will receive a response or result in a hire.
Presence News’ comparison does not establish that the LinkedIn listings involved were ghost jobs. It also does not verify allegations that employers inflated advertised salaries or posted positions primarily to gain search visibility and promote their company names.
Those concerns warrant further reporting. Employer silence alone cannot establish motive.
What the comparison does establish, based on the reported results, is that applications associated with LinkedIn generated substantially less employer contact than applications associated with Indeed.
Applicants’ Time Should Count
Our criticism is straightforward: job seekers need useful hiring opportunities, and application platforms should be judged partly by the outcomes applicants experience.
A professional-looking listing, recognizable company name or attractive salary range may encourage someone to apply. The practical value of that listing becomes clearer when an employer responds and the process advances.
In Presence News’ experience, Indeed provided more of that contact.
For applicants seeing similar results, our recommendation is to prioritize Indeed and track their own outcomes. Record applications, employer replies, interview invitations and offers separately. That makes it easier to identify which channels are producing progress.
LinkedIn may still serve other professional purposes, including networking and researching companies. Our recommendation here concerns using its jobs section as a primary application channel.
The Limits of This Comparison
This is an informal case study, not a representative measurement of either platform’s overall performance.
The summary available for this article does not specify application totals, testing dates, the response observation window or what counted as an employer response. It also does not establish whether applications were matched by employer, role, location, qualifications or application method.
Those details matter. Including several industries and career levels broadens the experience described, but does not make the comparison a controlled study.
Even with those limitations, the reported gap deserves attention. For Presence News, LinkedIn’s below-1% employer response rate was insufficient to justify recommending it as a primary application platform. Indeed’s reported 10–20% response rate made it the more productive channel in this comparison.