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

Trend Analysis: AI in Real Estate

Navigating the real estate market has long been synonymous with staggering costs, opaque processes, and a reliance on commission-based intermediaries that can consume a significant portion of a property’s value. This traditional framework is now facing a profound disruption from artificial intelligence, a technological force empowering consumers with unprecedented levels of control, transparency, and financial savings. As the industry stands

Insurtech Digital Platforms – Review

The silent drain on an insurer’s profitability often goes unnoticed, buried within the complex and aging architecture of legacy systems that impede growth and alienate a digitally native customer base. Insurtech digital platforms represent a significant advancement in the insurance sector, offering a clear path away from these outdated constraints. This review will explore the evolution of this technology from

Trend Analysis: Insurance Operational Control

The relentless pursuit of market share that has defined the insurance landscape for years has finally met its reckoning, forcing the industry to confront a new reality where operational discipline is the true measure of strength. After a prolonged period of chasing aggressive, unrestrained growth, 2025 has marked a fundamental pivot. The market is now shifting away from a “growth-at-all-costs”

AI Grading Tools Offer Both Promise and Peril

The familiar scrawl of a teacher’s red pen, once the definitive symbol of academic feedback, is steadily being replaced by the silent, instantaneous judgment of an algorithm. From the red-inked margins of yesteryear to the instant feedback of today, the landscape of academic assessment is undergoing a seismic shift. As educators grapple with growing class sizes and the demand for

Legacy Digital Twin vs. Industry 4.0 Digital Twin: A Comparative Analysis

The promise of a perfect digital replica—a tool that could mirror every gear turn and temperature fluctuation of a physical asset—is no longer a distant vision but a bifurcated reality with two distinct evolutionary paths. On one side stands the legacy digital twin, a powerful but often isolated marvel of engineering simulation. On the other is its successor, the Industry