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

Agentic AI Redefines the Software Development Lifecycle

The quiet hum of servers executing tasks once performed by entire teams of developers now underpins the modern software engineering landscape, signaling a fundamental and irreversible shift in how digital products are conceived and built. The emergence of Agentic AI Workflows represents a significant advancement in the software development sector, moving far beyond the simple code-completion tools of the past.

Is AI Creating a Hidden DevOps Crisis?

The sophisticated artificial intelligence that powers real-time recommendations and autonomous systems is placing an unprecedented strain on the very DevOps foundations built to support it, revealing a silent but escalating crisis. As organizations race to deploy increasingly complex AI and machine learning models, they are discovering that the conventional, component-focused practices that served them well in the past are fundamentally

Agentic AI in Banking – Review

The vast majority of a bank’s operational costs are hidden within complex, multi-step workflows that have long resisted traditional automation efforts, a challenge now being met by a new generation of intelligent systems. Agentic and multiagent Artificial Intelligence represent a significant advancement in the banking sector, poised to fundamentally reshape operations. This review will explore the evolution of this technology,

Cooling Job Market Requires a New Talent Strategy

The once-frenzied rhythm of the American job market has slowed to a quiet, steady hum, signaling a profound and lasting transformation that demands an entirely new approach to organizational leadership and talent management. For human resources leaders accustomed to the high-stakes war for talent, the current landscape presents a different, more subtle challenge. The cooldown is not a momentary pause

What If You Hired for Potential, Not Pedigree?

In an increasingly dynamic business landscape, the long-standing practice of using traditional credentials like university degrees and linear career histories as primary hiring benchmarks is proving to be a fundamentally flawed predictor of job success. A more powerful and predictive model is rapidly gaining momentum, one that shifts the focus from a candidate’s past pedigree to their present capabilities and