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

Is Ethereum Nearing a Historic Cycle Bottom?

The digital asset landscape has entered a period of profound introspection as market participants scrutinize Ethereum’s price action against a backdrop of evolving regulatory frameworks and institutional integration. For months, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization has navigated a turbulent range, leaving many to wonder if the current valuation represents a generational entry point or merely a temporary pause in

OPM Proposes New Standardized NDAs for Federal Employees

The federal government is currently moving toward a more cohesive administrative structure by proposing a single, standardized non-disclosure agreement for the millions of individuals serving across various executive agencies. This regulatory initiative, spearheaded by the Office of Personnel Management, aims to resolve the longstanding issue of fragmented confidentiality protocols that often vary significantly between departments. While the administration frames this

AI Reshapes Payment Risk Management for High-Risk Merchants

The digital commerce landscape has arrived at a critical juncture where traditional, isolated methods of managing financial risk are no longer capable of protecting high-growth enterprises from sophisticated modern threats. In sectors often designated as high-risk—ranging from cryptocurrency exchanges and international travel platforms to complex recurring subscription models—merchants are discovering that a fragmented approach to fraud, chargebacks, and customer support

Can AI Turn Your Workforce Into a Recruiting Powerhouse?

The traditional reliance on external headhunters and expensive job boards is rapidly fading as modern organizations discover that their most effective recruiters are already sitting in their office chairs or logged into their virtual workspaces. This transformation is driven by sophisticated machine learning algorithms that analyze internal networks to identify potential candidates who share the same values and technical competencies

Modern Linux Distributions Now Challenge Windows and macOS

The traditional duopoly of Windows and macOS is currently facing its most formidable challenge yet as open-source ecosystems transition from niche developer tools into mainstream powerhouses. While proprietary software companies have historically dominated the desktop market, the arrival of highly polished, user-centric distributions has shifted the conversation from technical curiosity to practical necessity. This evolution is not merely a cosmetic