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

Can the Zeus GPU Solve the Precision Gap Left by Nvidia?

The modern semiconductor industry is currently navigating a silent trade-off where massive gains in artificial intelligence come at the expense of traditional mathematical accuracy. While the world celebrates the speed of neural networks, a growing number of engineers and data scientists are finding that the hardware in their workstations no longer speaks the language of absolute precision. The race to

AMD Boosts RX 7000 Performance With FSR 4.1 AI Update

The satisfying click of a high-end graphics card seating into a motherboard remains a rite of passage for many enthusiasts, but that physical milestone is rapidly losing its status as the only way to achieve a significant performance leap. In the current era of hardware development, the most profound changes to a gaming experience no longer arrive exclusively in cardboard

AI Transforms Email Targeting and Personalization

The modern digital consumer expects every interaction with a brand to reflect their unique history, preferences, and current needs, yet many companies continue to rely on outdated strategies that ignore these fundamental behavioral signals. In a landscape where the average inbox is flooded with hundreds of generic notifications daily, the margin for error has narrowed to a razor-thin line between

How Is Generative AI Transforming Financial Services?

The rapid maturation of generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the structural foundations of global finance, moving far beyond mere automation to create a landscape where precision and human-like reasoning are the new standards. This technological evolution has moved past the initial phase of experimental implementation and is now deeply embedded in the daily workflows of the world’s most prestigious

AI Redefines the Strategic Foundations of Global Finance

The traditional architecture of the global banking system is currently dissolving under the weight of a monumental technological shift that places artificial intelligence at the very center of every capital movement. Finance departments are no longer the quiet record-keeping back offices of the past; they have evolved into command centers where data serves as high-octane fuel for real-time strategic maneuvers.