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 Are B2B Marketers Adapting to Digital Shifts?

As technology continues its swift march forward, B2B marketers find themselves navigating a dynamic environment influenced by ever-evolving consumer behaviors and expectations. With digital transformation reshaping industries, businesses are tasked with embracing new tools and implementing strategies that not only enhance operational efficiency but also foster deeper connections with their target audiences. This shift necessitates an understanding of both the

Master Key Metrics for B2B Content Success in 2025

In the dynamic landscape of business-to-business (B2B) marketing, content holds its ground as an essential driver of business growth, continuously adapting to meet the evolving digital environment. As companies allocate more resources toward content strategies, deciphering the metrics that indicate success becomes not only advantageous but necessary. This discussion delves into crucial metrics defining B2B content success, providing insights into

Mindful Leadership Boosts Workplace Mental Health

The modern workplace landscape is increasingly acknowledging the profound impact of leadership styles on employee mental health, particularly highlighted during Mental Health Awareness Month. Leaders must do more than offer superficial perks like meditation apps to make a meaningful difference in well-being. True progress lies in incorporating genuine mental health priorities into organizational strategies, enhancing employee engagement, retention, and performance.

How Can Leaders Integrate Curiosity Into Development Plans?

In an ever-evolving business landscape demanding constant innovation, leaders are increasingly recognizing the power of curiosity as a key element for progress. Curiosity fuels the drive for exploration and adaptability, which are crucial in navigating contemporary challenges. Acknowledging this, the concept of Individual Development Plans (IDPs) has emerged as a strategic mechanism to cultivate a culture of curiosity within organizations.

How Can Strategic Benefits Attract Top Talent?

Amid the complexities of today’s workforce dynamics, businesses face significant challenges in their quest to attract and retain top talent. Despite the clear importance of salary, it is increasingly evident that competitive wages alone do not suffice to entice skilled professionals, especially in an era where employees value comprehensive benefits that align with their evolving needs. Companies must now adopt