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

Databricks Unifies AI and Data Engineering With Lakeflow

The persistent struggle to bridge the widening gap between raw information and actionable intelligence has long forced data engineers into a grueling routine of building and maintaining brittle pipelines. For years, the profession was defined by the relentless management of “glue work,” those fragmented scripts and fragile connectors required to shuttle data between disparate storage and processing environments. As the

Trend Analysis: DevOps and Digital Innovation Strategies

The competitive landscape of the global economy has shifted from a race for resource accumulation to a high-stakes sprint for digital supremacy where the slow are quickly rendered obsolete. Organizations no longer view the integration of advanced software methodologies as a luxury but as a vital lifeline for operational continuity and market relevance. As businesses navigate an increasingly volatile environment,

Trend Analysis: Employee Engagement in 2026

The traditional contract between employer and employee is undergoing a radical transformation as the current year demands a complete overhaul of workplace dynamics. With global engagement levels hovering at a stagnant 21% and nearly half of the workforce reporting that their daily operations feel chaotic, the “business as usual” approach to human resources has reached its expiration date. This article

Beyond the Experience Economy: Driving Customer Transformation

The shift from merely providing a service to facilitating a profound personal or professional metamorphosis represents the new frontier of value creation in the modern marketplace. While the previous decade focused heavily on the Experience Economy, where memories were the primary product, the current landscape of 2026 demands more than just a fleeting moment of delight. Today, consumers are increasingly

The Strategic Convergence of Data, Software, and AI

The traditional boundary separating the analytical rigor of data management from the operational agility of software engineering has finally dissolved into a unified architecture. This shift represents a landscape where professionals no longer operate in isolation but instead navigate a complex environment defined by massive opportunity and systemic uncertainty. In this modern context, the walls between data management, software engineering,