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

Companies Can Prevent Bad AI Hires by Measuring True Fluency

Organizations across the global marketplace are currently grappling with an unprecedented urgency to demonstrate sophisticated artificial intelligence capabilities to their demanding boards and expectant investors. This intense pressure has transformed AI fluency from a specialized technical niche into a mandatory prerequisite for nearly ninety-five percent of organizations operating today. However, the rush to secure talent has led to a paradoxical

Can RPA Balance Healthcare Efficiency With Patient Care?

The modern medical landscape is currently defined by a paradoxical struggle where advanced clinical innovations are often overshadowed by the sheer volume of clerical work required to sustain them. Doctors today spend a staggering amount of their shifts staring at glowing screens rather than engaging with the human beings sitting in the examination rooms. When a physician spends more time

How Is BlackRock Dominating the Tokenized Asset Market?

BlackRock’s strategic deployment of the USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of global finance by successfully bridging the gap between traditional banking and decentralized ledgers. This initiative, widely recognized as BUIDL, represents a pivot from the speculative nature of early cryptocurrency markets toward the practical utility of high-grade financial instruments. By 2026, the institutional narrative has

How Can Lagos State Combat Workplace Harassment?

The rapidly evolving commercial landscape of Lagos State, often characterized by its relentless pace and high-stakes corporate environment, currently faces a critical reckoning as reports of workplace harassment continue to surface across various sectors. This phenomenon is not merely a social grievance but a significant barrier to economic productivity and employee retention in Africa’s largest subnational economy. As the city

Microsoft Refines Windows 11 Design With K2 Initiative

The traditional desktop environment is undergoing a fundamental transformation as Microsoft addresses long-standing visual inconsistencies through its ambitious internal project known as the K2 Initiative. This effort represents a significant shift from the piecemeal updates seen in previous years toward a holistic overhaul of the operating system’s aesthetic and functional layers. By prioritizing a more cohesive user experience, developers worked