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

What Does Copilot Actually Change for Your ERP Team?

The promise of total operational automation often vanishes the moment a finance director attempts to reconcile a complex discrepancy within a live enterprise resource planning environment. While the current year has seen an explosion in the accessibility of artificial intelligence, many organizations still struggle to find the line between marketing hype and tangible utility. For teams utilizing Dynamics 365, the

How Does Modern ERP Drive Manufacturing Efficiency?

A single delayed shipment or a minor equipment glitch can trigger a cascade of failures across a production line, turning a profitable shift into a logistical nightmare that erodes profit margins and damages customer trust. This fragility stems from a historical reliance on fragmented data sets and disconnected communication channels that fail to account for the speed of the contemporary

Howl Louder Debuts GEO Service for B2B AI Search Visibility

As the traditional search landscape fractures under the weight of generative AI models that provide direct answers instead of lists of links, B2B enterprises are finding that their legacy SEO strategies no longer drive the same volume of high-intent traffic to their landing pages. This shift toward answer-based search has created a vacuum where visibility is measured not by page

How Will Market Intelligence Redefine B2B Marketing in 2026?

The high-stakes negotiation for a multi-million dollar software enterprise contract no longer involves a handshake or a shared dinner, but rather a seamless digital handshake between two hyper-optimized algorithms. In this landscape, marketing to human executives has shifted significantly toward addressing autonomous procurement agents that analyze technical specifications with cold, calculated efficiency. The manual quarterly report and the reliance on

Microsoft Quietly Dominates the B2B Marketing Ecosystem

While the marketing world remained fixated on the volatility of consumer social media and search engine updates, a three-trillion-dollar giant was methodically re-engineering the very pipes of global commerce. With quarterly revenues hitting $90 billion—an 18% year-over-year increase—Microsoft has moved far beyond its legacy as a provider of operating systems and spreadsheets. It has quietly assembled a comprehensive marketing machine