Vanessa
I would not recommend Resume Wizard…
UPDATE AFTER BUSINESS RESPONSE I want to address several inaccuracies in the company's reply, because the response only further highlights the ongoing issue of lack of accountability. First: I raised concerns with the CSM throughout the engagement. She apologized each time, but the mistakes continued. These were not concerns shared “only at the end” - they were documented in real time through spreadsheet notes and written messages. I added comments in the tracker whenever a role did not meet the agreed criteria, including several positions requiring relocation to cities I do not live in. This indicates the job descriptions were not being reviewed carefully before being added. There is documented proof of this communication. Second: The same spreadsheet also shows that I sourced over 75 percent of the roles myself. I began sourcing most roles myself simply to save time and avoid further delays caused by repeated errors in the listings being added. Third: Neil keeps repeating that he did not know until the end, but that is not what happened. I expressed uncertainty about continuing during a phone call, then followed up a few days later with a detailed email outlining the errors and stating that I would not be renewing. I received no reply for nearly two months. When he eventually did respond, the reply still lacked accountability, which is what led me to post my review. To be clear, at no point did I expect or request a job offer within 30 days. My concerns were about repeated mistakes, lack of attention to detail, and the service quality not matching the price. Reframing it as impatience or misunderstanding is not accurate. He also references a transcript that supposedly shows I said everything was fine. I do not know what transcript he is referring to or whether it was selectively interpreted, because on my side, feedback is clearly documented through email and the shared spreadsheet. The written record reflects exactly what I stated here. He also mentions having screenshots, which is bold considering neither of us can post screenshots here. I have screenshots as well, and mine document a very different story. THE MOST ALARMING PART: After I left my review, I received approximately 10 LinkedIn messages from the owner. I only replied to ask him to stop contacting me, and repeated that request several times. The volume and persistence of the messages felt disproportionate and inappropriate for a business exchange. Rather than addressing concerns directly, the messages continued reframing events and defending the business, despite boundaries being clearly set. The inability to disengage made the interaction uncomfortable and is where the lack of accountability became most apparent. Whether feedback was given throughout the month or summarized afterward does not change its validity. The quality of work did not justify the cost - that alone is relevant for prospective clients. My original review was a factual outline of errors that occurred. The escalation afterward is what raised the most concern. After ending this engagement, I worked with a different career coach and within one month I had multiple interviews and ultimately landed a role. I had not expected results that quickly, but it demonstrated the difference in outcome when the process is handled with accuracy, consistency, and attention to detail. This contrast made it even clearer to me that the challenges I experienced were not simply the nature of the job market, but specific to the quality and structure of this service. Initially, my issue was that the service did not meet the standard expected for the price. However, the ongoing responses, defensiveness, and difficulty respecting boundaries became a larger red flag than the work itself. In my experience, the biggest issue was not the service - it was the leadership. That is why I now feel it is necessary to warn others about working with Neil directly. I also noticed that within 24 hours of posting my initial review, there were roughly ten new five-star reviews added. I cannot speak to the source or legitimacy of those reviews, but the timing stood out and felt unusual enough to note for transparency. I have also shared my experience, including screenshots and documentation, on another public forum where others have come forward describing similar concerns. Anyone who wants further context or a full breakdown can easily find that discussion. I stand by every part of this review so future clients can make an informed decision. This will be my final word on the matter. The behavior speaks for itself.
Response from CareerLander.comNov 25, 2025
I want to take ownership for my part. In any high-volume service, small mistakes can happen, and it is our responsibility to correct them quickly. Every issue that was communicated during the engagement was fixed promptly. The difficulty here is that the full list of concerns being described were not shared until the final message ending the service, which meant I did not have the opportunity to address them. We have the full documented timeline, message history, check-ins, and sourcing activity. Everything is recorded, and the claims being made do not match the actual sequence of events or reality. To keep this objective, here is what actually happened, followed by her direct written quotes. She completed 30 days of a 90-day program. She chose to end the engagement after the first 30 days. That context matters. Results in those 30 days: On our first call she said that her own job search prior to us produced "3 interviews in 6 months." In just 30 days with us she had: 3+ interviews A second round Discovery conversations Warm introductions into Zillow Multiple internal referrals We produced more interviews for her in 30 days than she produced for herself in half a year. These results do not align with the idea of "poor quality". Communication: She says she shared ongoing concerns. The full list of concerns appeared in the same email where she ended the service. Before that, I verified every check-in from her CSM received: "Everything is fine." "It looks great." "I approved them." "I am enjoying the process. Thank you for all your hard work." We cannot address concerns that were never communicated during the engagement, only the ones that were communicated. The written record shows this clearly. 4. Sourcing clarity: She wrote her understanding of the program in her intake form: “You apply to jobs and network for me using my logins.” She understood the partnership model. When clients decline roles we source, they replace them so the pipeline stays full. That is standard. Her current explanation does not match what she agreed to. Contradictions on back-and-forth: She questioned why I continued responding, yet every reply from me was in direct response to new claims she introduced. She said her comments were final but continued sending additional statements each time I provided context. I have no issue acknowledging that I responded as well. What is unclear is the expectation that I should remain silent while new, contradictory statements were added. She saw measurable progress in 30 days, but not a final offer in 30 days, and that is why I believe this review was left. She stated that a refund "could have been offered", which makes the primary concern clear. This was driven by the financial outcome, not the documented results. The written facts align with the hundreds of positive reviews from clients who completed the full program. WRITTEN EVIDENCE (HER DIRECT QUOTES) On her own job search before joining: "I had 3 interviews in 6 months." "If I could just get an interview, I know I would do well. I just cannot get them." On her experience with our team: "Thanks. I am enjoying the process. It has been great working with you. I am learning a lot." "When I was doing this on my own I never got a response. So much work going nowhere." "It looks great, thank you." "This sounds much better." "Thank you for all your hard work." On the traction the program created: "X from Zillow reached out. Discovery call." "We scheduled the second interview for Tuesday." "The conversation went really well. Good sign." On her understanding of the partnership model: "You apply to jobs and network for me using my logins." The final day is where she truly expressed dissatisfaction with quality, communication, sourcing, and results. Her written words contradict the central claims in the updated review. She implied the 5-star reviews posted after hers were suspicious, which should tell you everything you need to know.