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

Global RPA Market Set for Rapid Growth Through 2033

The modern business environment has reached a definitive turning point where the distinction between human administrative effort and automated digital execution is blurring into a singular, cohesive workflow. As organizations navigate the complexities of a post-pandemic economic landscape in 2026, the reliance on Robotic Process Automation (RPA) has transitioned from a competitive advantage to a fundamental requirement for survival. This

US Labor Market Cools Following January Employment Surge

The sheer magnitude of the employment surge witnessed during the first month of the year has left economists questioning whether the American economy is truly overheating or simply experiencing a statistical anomaly. While January provided a blowout performance that defied most conservative forecasts, the subsequent data for February suggests that a significant cooling period is finally taking hold. This shift

Trend Analysis: Entry Level Remote Careers

The long-standing belief that securing a high-paying professional career requires a decade of office-bound grinding is being systematically dismantled by a digital-first economy that values specific output over physical attendance. For decades, the entry-level designation often implied a physical presence in a cubicle and years of preparatory internships, yet fresh data suggests that high-paying remote opportunities are now accessible to

How to Bridge Skills Gaps by Developing Internal Talent

The modern labor market presents a paradoxical challenge where specialized roles remain vacant for months while thousands of capable employees feel their professional growth has hit an impenetrable ceiling. This misalignment is not merely a recruitment issue but a systemic failure to recognize “adjacent-fit” talent—individuals who already possess the vast majority of required competencies but are overlooked due to rigid

Is Physical Disability a Barrier to Executive Leadership?

When a seasoned diplomat with a career spanning the United Nations and high-level corporate strategy enters a boardroom, the initial assessment by peers should theoretically rest upon a decade of proven crisis management and multi-million-dollar partnership successes. However, for many leaders who live with visible physical disabilities, the resume often faces an uphill battle against a deeply ingrained societal bias.