Is it worth applying for a job if I don't meet all the requirements?

I've placed candidates into roles where they were missing a 'required' certification, a 'required' number of years, a 'required' tech stack, and in one memorable case a 'required' undergraduate degree. The job ads were never updated. That's how the UK market actually works — JDs are wishlists describing the ideal candidate, and hiring managers compromise privately.

The practical thresholds, after twelve years of placements: 80%+ match, apply normally — you're a standard qualified candidate. 60-80% match, apply with a strong cover letter that addresses the gap directly. 30-60% match, apply only if the gap is in nice-to-haves (not must-haves) and the cover letter is excellent. Under 30%, don't bother — the letter won't save you and you'll burn time better spent on roles you can actually win.

The hard filters that genuinely block you: specific certifications (CFA, ACCA, PMP, certain DBS-required roles), language requirements, security clearance levels, right-to-work status, and nominal years of experience for graduate-scheme cut-offs. If you're missing one of these, the application is almost certain to be screened out by the ATS or first-pass recruiter. If you're missing a nice-to-have tool or a year of experience, apply anyway.

The cover letter does the heavy lifting on stretch applications. Name the gap once, explicitly, in the first paragraph. Then move past it with the compensating strength. 'I'm five years into PM rather than the seven the role specifies, but my last three years were all on £20m+ international product launches at [company], which is the work the role is actually about.' Don't list every gap; that just helps the reader disqualify you.