Time To Hire vs Time to Fill

Time to Hire and Time to Fill measure different aspects of the recruitment process, though they're often confused or used interchangeably. Time to Fill tracks the entire recruitment lifecycle from job requisition approval until the position is filled, reflecting the total calendar days a position remains open. It encompasses all recruitment activities, including job posting, sourcing, and administrative processes. Time to Hire, however, measures a narrower timeframe—typically from when a candidate enters your recruitment process (applies or is sourced) until they accept your offer. This metric focuses specifically on how efficiently your team converts identified candidates into employees, excluding the initial job posting and sourcing phase.

When evaluating your overall recruitment strategy and planning capabilities, Time to Fill provides more comprehensive insights. For example, if your organization consistently shows a 90-day Time to Fill for senior engineering roles while the industry average is 60 days, you might need to improve your requisition approval process, job description development, or candidate sourcing strategies. Conversely, use Time to Hire when assessing your recruitment team's efficiency in moving candidates through the pipeline. If candidates typically spend 45 days from application to offer acceptance, you might identify bottlenecks in specific stages, such as lengthy interview scheduling or slow decision-making from hiring managers. While Time to Fill helps with workforce planning and recruitment forecasting, Time to Hire better pinpoints process inefficiencies that directly impact candidate experience and can lead to losing top talent to competitors with faster hiring processes.