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

AI and Generative AI Transform Global Corporate Banking

The high-stakes world of global corporate finance has finally severed its ties to the sluggish, paper-heavy traditions of the past, replacing the clatter of manual data entry with the silent, lightning-fast processing of neural networks. While the industry once viewed artificial intelligence as a speculative luxury confined to the periphery of experimental “innovation labs,” it has now matured into the

Is Auditability the New Standard for Agentic AI in Finance?

The days when a financial analyst could be mesmerized by a chatbot simply generating a coherent market summary have vanished, replaced by a rigorous demand for structural transparency. As financial institutions pivot from experimental generative models to autonomous agents capable of managing liquidity and executing trades, the “wow factor” has been eclipsed by the cold reality of production-grade requirements. In

How to Bridge the Execution Gap in Customer Experience

The modern enterprise often functions like a sophisticated supercomputer that possesses every piece of relevant information about a customer yet remains fundamentally incapable of addressing a simple inquiry without requiring the individual to repeat their identity multiple times across different departments. This jarring reality highlights a systemic failure known as the execution gap—a void where multi-million dollar investments in marketing

Trend Analysis: AI Driven DevSecOps Orchestration

The velocity of software production has reached a point where human intervention is no longer the primary driver of development, but rather the most significant bottleneck in the security lifecycle. As generative tools produce massive volumes of functional code in seconds, the traditional manual review process has effectively crumbled under the weight of machine-generated output. This shift has created a

Navigating Kubernetes Complexity With FinOps and DevOps Culture

The rapid transition from static virtual machine environments to the fluid, containerized architecture of Kubernetes has effectively rewritten the rules of modern infrastructure management. While this shift has empowered engineering teams to deploy at an unprecedented velocity, it has simultaneously introduced a layer of financial complexity that traditional billing models are ill-equipped to handle. As organizations navigate the current landscape,