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 If Data Engineers Stopped Fighting Fires?

The global push toward artificial intelligence has placed an unprecedented demand on the architects of modern data infrastructure, yet a silent crisis of inefficiency often traps these crucial experts in a relentless cycle of reactive problem-solving. Data engineers, the individuals tasked with building and maintaining the digital pipelines that fuel every major business initiative, are increasingly bogged down by the

What Is Shaping the Future of Data Engineering?

Beyond the Pipeline: Data Engineering’s Strategic Evolution Data engineering has quietly evolved from a back-office function focused on building simple data pipelines into the strategic backbone of the modern enterprise. Once defined by Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) jobs that moved data into rigid warehouses, the field is now at the epicenter of innovation, powering everything from real-time analytics and AI-driven

Trend Analysis: Agentic AI Infrastructure

From dazzling demonstrations of autonomous task completion to the ambitious roadmaps of enterprise software, Agentic AI promises a fundamental revolution in how humans interact with technology. This wave of innovation, however, is revealing a critical vulnerability hidden beneath the surface of sophisticated models and clever prompt design: the data infrastructure that powers these autonomous systems. An emerging trend is now

Embedded Finance and BaaS – Review

The checkout button on a favorite shopping app and the instant payment to a gig worker are no longer simple transactions; they are the visible endpoints of a profound architectural shift remaking the financial industry from the inside out. The rise of Embedded Finance and Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) represents a significant advancement in the financial services sector. This review will explore

Trend Analysis: Embedded Finance

Financial services are quietly dissolving into the digital fabric of everyday life, becoming an invisible yet essential component of non-financial applications from ride-sharing platforms to retail loyalty programs. This integration represents far more than a simple convenience; it is a fundamental re-architecting of the financial industry. At its core, this shift is transforming bank balance sheets from static pools of