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 to Solve the Crisis of CRM Data Integrity

The realization that a multimillion-dollar technology investment has devolved into a glorified Rolodex filled with fiction often strikes every executive only when their quarterly forecasts miss the mark by double digits. While the initial promise of a Customer Relationship Management system is to provide a central nervous system for business growth, the reality for many organizations is a digital landscape

What Are the Five Pillars of Lasting Customer Loyalty?

True brand sustainability is not forged in the fires of aggressive marketing but in the quiet, consistent moments where a customer feels genuinely respected and heard by a business representative. Many organizations operate under the misconception that loyalty is a commodity to be purchased through flashy rewards or deep discounts. However, the reality is far more nuanced and relies on

Bridging the Visibility Gap in Customer Experience

A modern digital enterprise can unknowingly hemorrhage millions in revenue while every technical monitor in the server room displays a tranquil, unwavering shade of emerald green. This visual confirmation of system health often masks a silent crisis occurring at the user interface, where customers encounter broken links, frozen buttons, or sluggish load times that never trigger a server-side alarm. Understanding

Protect Email Marketing ROI with Quality and Deliverability

In an environment where every digital touchpoint carries a specific financial weight, the instinct to flood the inbox with high-volume campaigns often triggers a cascade of unintended consequences that erode the very profit margins marketers aim to protect. While email remains a premier revenue-generating channel, its effectiveness is currently threatened by two main factors: increasingly stringent inbox provider regulations and

Email Marketing Software Market to Reach $3.32 Billion by 2031

The persistent roar of algorithmic social feeds has paradoxically transformed the quiet, curated space of the electronic inbox into the most profitable landscape for modern digital commerce. While the broader public square of the internet often feels increasingly cluttered and volatile, the email inbox remains a sanctuary of direct, intentional communication that cuts through the peripheral noise with surgical precision.