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 Bad Data Architecture Stalling Your AI Ambitions?

The corporate landscape is littered with the wreckage of ambitious artificial intelligence projects that were doomed from the start because they were built upon the shifting sands of legacy data systems rather than a rock-solid architectural foundation. While the allure of generative models and autonomous agents captures the imagination of the executive suite, the practical reality of implementation often reveals

Enterprise Software Valuation – Review

The digital infrastructure underpinning the global economy has undergone a radical transformation as enterprise software moves beyond simple automation toward predictive, AI-integrated environments. This transition marks a departure from the legacy models of the past decade, placing a spotlight on how 191 US-listed firms with market capitalizations over $2 billion are being appraised. Current market sentiment focuses on the financial

Why Human Systems Are Essential for Successful AI Integration

The global rush to integrate artificial intelligence into every facet of business operations has led to a paradoxical situation where massive financial injections often result in stagnant growth and technical obsolescence. Across the globe, organizations are pouring billions into advanced algorithms, yet many find that these investments fail to deliver a measurable return. The prevailing assumption that a more powerful

The UN Establishes Global Framework for AI Governance

Secretary-General António Guterres has emphasized that while national actions are essential, global coordination remains indispensable to prevent a regulatory race to the bottom in AI development. This statement resonates deeply as the world faces a critical juncture where the speed of technological advancement consistently outpaces the slow-moving gears of traditional bureaucracy. In 2026, the proliferation of large-scale language models and

Can AI Balance Economic Growth With Global Risks?

The silence of a high-tech laboratory often masks the thunderous impact of its outputs, but today that impact is felt in every coffee shop and boardroom across the planet where silicon chips are redefining human capability. More than a billion individuals have now woven generative models into the fabric of their professional and personal existences, creating a momentum that moves