Time to Fill vs Time to Hire: Which Metric is More Important?

Are you tired of sifting through resumes and conducting countless interviews in hopes of finding the perfect candidate for your company? It can be a daunting and time-consuming task, but thankfully, we have metrics like time to fill vs time to hire to help measure the efficiency of the hiring process. However, have you pondered over which metric carries more significance? It’s comparable to selecting between pizza and tacos; both are delectable, but which one triumphs?

This blog post is dedicated to examining the disparities between time to fill vs time to hire and aiding you in determining which metric is more favorable for your hiring process.

So, get ready to relish a slice of pizza or a taco while we delve into this topic!

Time to Fill vs Time to Hire: What Are They?

If you’re in the hiring game, you’ve likely come across the terms “time to fill” and “time to hire” at some point. But, what exactly do these terms mean? time to fill is the number of days it takes to fill a vacancy from the day it was opened until the candidate accepts the offer. On the other hand, time to hire is the number of days it takes to hire a candidate from the moment they applied for the job to the day they accept the offer.

Tracking these metrics is crucial for organizations as it helps them impeccably measure the efficiency of their hiring process. A lengthy hiring process can result in increased costs, loss of productivity, and even losing out on top talent to competitors. By monitoring time to fill vs time to hire, companies can identify bottlenecks in the process and take steps to improve it.

The purpose of this blog is to determine which metric is more important – time to fill or time to hire – and why. So, let’s dive in and see which metric comes out on top.

Time to Fill vs Time to Hire: What’s the Difference?

Are you ready to dive deeper into the world of hiring metrics? Let’s take a closer look at the time to fill vs time to hire, and explore the intriguing differences between these two metrics.

While these terms may appear interchangeable, they actually measure very different aspects of the hiring process. So, what exactly is time to fill? It’s the measure of the time it takes to fill a job opening, starting from the day it was announced to the moment a candidate accepts the offer. From creating job postings to conducting interviews, this metric includes all the steps involved in the hiring process.

On the other hand, time to hire measures the time it takes to hire a candidate from the moment they applied for the job to the day they accept the offer. This metric only includes the time spent on activities related to the selection process, such as reviewing resumes, conducting interviews, and negotiating offers.

More specifically, time to fill is a broader metric that includes all activities related to filling a vacancy, while time to hire only focuses on the selection process.

Understanding the difference between these two metrics is important as it can help organizations identify where they need to focus their efforts to improve their hiring process. But, which one is more important, and what are the various factors affecting them? We’ll explore that in the next section.

Factors Affecting Time to Fill and How to Calculate It

As any hiring manager knows, filling a job opening can be a tricky business. Several factors can affect the time to fill, including the complexity of the role, the job market, the quality of candidates, and the hiring process itself.

A complex role that requires specialized skills may take longer to fill than a less complex role. The job market can also impact time to fill, with low unemployment rates resulting in a more competitive market and a dreadfully longer hiring process.

The quality of candidates can also play a role, with a larger pool of qualified candidates potentially leading to a shorter time to fill. Lastly, the mundane hiring process, lengthy background checks, and multiple rounds of interviews can negatively impact the time to fill.

To calculate the time to fill, companies typically track the number of days from the day the vacancy was opened to the day the candidate accepts the offer. This metric can be calculated for individual roles or as an average across all vacancies.

So, what’s a good benchmark for time to fill? It can vary depending on the industry and job market. According to a talent acquisition benchmarking report by SHRM, the average time to fill in the US is 36 days on average, but it can range from a few days to several months. It’s important to note that while a shorter time to fill is generally better, rushing the hiring process to meet a deadline can result in a poor hire.

Factors Affecting Time to Hire and How to Calculate It

Now let’s turn our attention to time to hire. Similar to time to fill, there are several factors that can impact this metric. The complexity of the role, the number of candidates, the quality of the hiring process, and the availability of decision-makers are all factors that can affect the time to hire. A complex role that requires multiple rounds of interviews or a lengthy decision-making process can result in a longer time to hire. Similarly, a large number of candidates can lead to longer hiring times if each candidate needs to be reviewed.

To calculate time to hire, companies typically track the number of days from the moment a candidate applied for the job to the day they accept the offer. This metric can also be calculated for individual roles or as an average across all vacancies.

So, what’s a good benchmark for time to hire? According to a study by LinkedIn, the average time to hire in the US is 36 days. Thankfully, Elevatus claims to reduce this time by 80% by incorporating its award-winning recruitment software. At the same time, it’s important to remember that this can vary depending on the industry, location, and job market. A shorter time to hire is generally better, as it allows companies to secure top talent before their competitors. However, rushing the process can also result in a poor hire. Finding the right balance between efficiency and quality is key.

Comparing and Contrasting Time to Fill vs Time to Hire

Now that we’ve covered the factors that affect both time to fill vs time to hire, let’s compare and contrast these two metrics.

While both metrics are important in assessing the efficiency of the hiring process, they measure different things. time to fill measures the time from when the position becomes available to the day the candidate starts working, while time to hire measures the time from when the candidate applies to when they accept the job offer.

In general, if an organization’s priority is to quickly fill a role, time to hire may be the more important metric to track. However, if the focus is on finding the right candidate for the job, time to fill may be more important. Additionally, depending on the industry and job market, one metric may be more important than the other. For example, in a highly competitive market, organizations may prioritize time to hire to secure top talent before their competitors.

Ultimately, the choice of which metric to prioritize depends on the organization’s goals and needs.

Final Verdict

To effectively use these metrics, it’s important to consider the factors that affect them and establish benchmarks that align with the organization’s goals and needs. By tracking both time to fill vs time to hire, organizations can identify areas of improvement and optimize their recruitment process.

In general, a shorter time to hire can help secure top talent before competitors, while a shorter time to fill can ensure a higher-quality hire. However, rushing the process can also lead to poor hires. Finding the right balance between efficiency and quality is key.

Ultimately, tracking both time to fill vs time to hire can help organizations make data-driven decisions and improve their recruitment efforts to attract and retain top talent!

Author