What Are The Key Differences Between Time to Fill and Time to Hire?

Although some people use the terms interchangeably, “time to fill” and “time to hire” are distinctly different metrics that serve integral parts of the talent acquisition process. The former measures the average number of days it takes to have someone start working in a role, while the latter tracks how fast a candidate progresses through the hiring process until the offer stage, labor experts informed HR Dive. This differentiation can have significant impacts on how companies assess their recruitment efficiency and candidate experience.

Calculating Time to Fill

Rick Hermanns, CEO of global staffing company HireQuest, previously explained his method for calculating the metric known as time to fill. The process involves three essential steps:

  • Define the start and end points for measurement. Typically, the clock might start ticking when a job is posted or when HR receives a job requisition form, ending when the candidate officially begins work.
  • Calculate the duration for a single position by counting the number of workdays from the starting point to the endpoint.
  • Summate the time to fill for each position and divide by the total number of positions filled to obtain the average time to fill.

Adopting these guidelines provides a straightforward way to measure and optimize recruitment timelines.

Trends Around Time to Hire

The report by human capital management company The Josh Bersin Co. and talent firm AMS indicates that time-to-hire rates have risen in recent years, revealing it now takes an average of 44 days to fill a job opening. However, this figure can vary significantly depending on the industry. For instance, energy and defense sectors face more prolonged hiring periods, averaging 67 days for specialists.

The data underscores varying ease and difficulty levels in filling positions, which can inform strategic adjustments to recruitment processes across different sectors. Notably, the findings pointed out that overall hiring in many regions is expected to slow and face more challenges.

The Bottom Line

People often confuse “time to fill” and “time to hire,” but these metrics are quite different and both play important roles in the talent acquisition process. “Time to fill” refers to the average number of days it takes from when a job is posted until a candidate starts working. On the other hand, “time to hire” measures the speed at which someone moves through the hiring process, from the initial job application to the moment an offer is made. According to labor experts consulted by HR Dive, understanding these differences is crucial for companies. It allows organizations to better evaluate their recruitment efficiency and improve aspects of the candidate experience. By analyzing both metrics, employers can identify delays in the hiring process and make improvements to attract and secure top talent more effectively. This kind of insight can lead to more strategic decision-making in talent acquisition, ultimately benefiting both the company and potential employees.

Explore more

ARPA-H Invests $32M in Autonomous Robotic Stroke Treatment

Redefining the Race: The Clock in Stroke Intervention When a blood clot suddenly lodges in a cerebral artery, the human brain begins to lose roughly two million neurons every single minute that the obstruction remains in place. This reality defines the urgency behind a $32 million investment from the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). The funding targets Magnendo,

Guide Ranks the Best Small Business Payroll Software for 2026

The moment an entrepreneur realizes that a simple decimal error in a payroll run could trigger a massive federal audit is usually the exact second they stop viewing their software as a luxury and start seeing it as an essential protective shield. In the current landscape, the margin for error has narrowed significantly, as state and federal tax authorities have

Can AI Ever Replace Human Intuition in Modern Hiring?

A seasoned hiring manager tosses a candidate’s profile aside while claiming the person simply did not have the right energy, leaving a nearby data analyst completely baffled. To an advanced artificial intelligence, this feedback is a dead end—a vague data point that offers no actionable insight for a machine-learning model. To a veteran recruiter, however, this phrase is a coded

AI Hiring Tools Are Now a Major Security Risk for CIOs

The unassuming PDF file sitting in a digital stack of applications has quietly evolved from a static career summary into a sophisticated piece of executable code capable of hijacking enterprise logic. For decades, recruitment software lived in the relative safety of the back office, primarily serving as a repository for record-keeping and workflow automation. However, the rapid integration of artificial

AI and Remote Work Fuel a Costly Crisis in Hiring Integrity

The polished professional currently answering technical questions on a high-definition video call might actually be an elaborate digital facade powered by a sophisticated network of hidden AI agents. Recruitment processes that once relied on physical cues and verified histories have been subverted by a wave of technological deception that threatens the very core of corporate integrity. As organizations expanded their