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 Will AI-to-AI Interactions Change Customer Service?

Instead of waiting on a static telephone line for a human representative to answer a simple question, a person’s digital assistant now communicates directly with a corporate server to resolve the issue in seconds. This transformation marks the definitive shift from consumer-to-business interaction toward an autonomous machine-to-machine dialogue. The landscape of customer service is no longer just about improving the

How Is Voice AI Transforming the Future of Customer Experience?

The frustrating cacophony of numeric menus and mechanical repetitions that once defined customer service has finally been silenced by the arrival of truly conversational artificial intelligence. For the first time in the history of telecommunications, the boundary between biological and synthetic interaction has become nearly indistinguishable, offering a seamless bridge between a consumer’s problem and a company’s solution. This transformation

Voice of the Customer: Strategies and Roadmap for 2027

The rapid disappearance of traditional customer feedback channels has forced modern organizations to reconsider how they interpret the silent signals buried within digital interactions and behavioral patterns. As consumer behavior shifts toward a more fragmented and private digital existence, the reliance on overt participation in long-form surveys has become a strategic liability rather than an asset. The current landscape of

Is Your CRM Ready for the Era of Agentic AI?

The silent humming of a data center today signifies more than just storage; it represents the potential energy of a digital workforce waiting for its instructions. While the previous decade focused on the collection and categorization of customer information, the current landscape demands a shift from observation to execution. The modern business environment no longer views the Customer Relationship Management

China Plans Full 6G Commercialization by 2030

While the global community continues to integrate fifth-generation networks into daily life, the strategic focus of leading technological powers has already pivoted toward a future where connectivity is no longer an external utility but an inherent property of the physical environment. This evolution marks a transition from a world of simple mobile internet to a reality defined by an ubiquitous

Fill out the form below