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

How Can HR Resist Senior Pressure to Hire the Unqualified?

The request usually arrives with a deceptive sense of urgency and the heavy weight of authority when a senior executive suggests a “perfect candidate” who happens to lack every required credential for the role. In these high-pressure moments, Human Resources professionals find themselves caught in a professional vice, squeezed between their duty to uphold organizational integrity and the direct orders

Why Strategy Beats Standardized Healthcare Marketing

When a private surgical center invests six figures into a digital presence only to find their schedule remains half-empty, the culprit is rarely a lack of technical effort but rather a total absence of strategic differentiation. This phenomenon illustrates the most expensive mistake a medical practice can make: assuming that a high-performing campaign for one clinic will yield identical results

Why In-Person Events Are the Ultimate B2B Marketing Tool

A mountain of leads generated by a sophisticated digital campaign might look impressive on a spreadsheet, yet it often fails to persuade a skeptical executive to authorize a complex contract requiring deep institutional trust. Digital marketing can generate high volume, but the most influential transactions are moving away from the screen and back into the physical room. In an era

Hybrid Models Redefine the Future of Wealth Management

The long-standing friction between automated algorithms and human expertise is finally dissolving into a sophisticated partnership that prioritizes client outcomes over technological purity. For over a decade, the financial sector remained fixated on a zero-sum game, debating whether the rise of the robo-advisor would eventually render the human professional obsolete. Recent market shifts suggest this was the wrong question to

Is Tune Talk Shop the Future of Mobile E-Commerce?

The traditional mobile application once served as a cold, digital ledger where users spent mere seconds checking data balances or paying monthly bills before quickly exiting. Today, a seismic shift in consumer behavior is redefining that experience, as Tune Talk users now spend an average of 36 minutes daily engaged within a single ecosystem. This level of immersion suggests that