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 AI Agents Work: Types, Uses, Vendors, and Future

From Scripted Bots to Autonomous Coworkers: Why AI Agents Matter Now Everyday workflows are quietly shifting from predictable point-and-click forms into fluid conversations with software that listens, reasons, and takes action across tools without being micromanaged at every step. The momentum behind this change did not arise overnight; organizations spent years automating tasks inside rigid templates only to find that

AI Coding Agents – Review

A Surge Meets Old Lessons Executives promised dazzling efficiency and cost savings by letting AI write most of the code while humans merely supervise, but the past months told a sharper story about speed without discipline turning routine mistakes into outages, leaks, and public postmortems that no board wants to read. Enthusiasm did not vanish; it matured. The technology accelerated

Open Loop Transit Payments – Review

A Fare Without Friction Millions of riders today expect to tap a bank card or phone at a gate, glide through in under half a second, and trust that the system will sort out the best fare later without standing in line for a special card. That expectation sits at the heart of Mastercard’s enhanced open-loop transit solution, which replaces

OVHcloud Unveils 3-AZ Berlin Region for Sovereign EU Cloud

A Launch That Raised The Stakes Under the TV tower’s gaze, a new cloud region stitched across Berlin quietly went live with three availability zones spaced by dozens of kilometers, each with its own power, cooling, and networking, and it recalibrated how European institutions plan for resilience and control. The design read like a utility blueprint rather than a tech

Can the Energy Transition Keep Pace With the AI Boom?

Introduction Power bills are rising even as cleaner energy gains ground because AI’s electricity hunger is rewriting the grid’s playbook and compressing timelines once thought generous. The collision of surging digital demand, sharpened corporate strategy, and evolving policy has turned the energy transition from a marathon into a series of sprints. Data centers, crypto mines, and electrifying freight now press