Time to Fill:
Definition & Comparison

Time to fill is a recruiting metric that measures the number of calendar days it takes to find and hire a new candidate, typically measured from the day a job requisition is approved to the day a candidate accepts a job offer. This metric provides organizations with a holistic view of their entire recruitment process efficiency and helps in business planning by offering a realistic timeline for replacing departed employees.

Some organizations choose different starting points for measuring time to fill, including when a hiring manager submits a job requisition for approval or when a job opening is published online. Similarly, some consider the candidate's starting date as the endpoint rather than offer acceptance. The key is to maintain consistency in tracking and measure all openings using the same methodology.

Related terms: time to hire, time to start, recruiting metrics, hiring efficiency

Tracking time to fill provides 5 key benefits for organizations. First, it enables better planning of recruitment efforts by revealing the average time required to replace employees with similar experience levels. Second, it helps identify inefficiencies in the recruitment process, allowing teams to spot which roles take longer to fill and which departments experience delays. Third, it reduces the cost of unfilled positions by minimizing job advertising expenses, reducing overtime costs, and decreasing employee burnout. Fourth, open positions cost organizations money in terms of productivity because work is not getting done, potentially impacting both the vacant role and other positions as employees pick up additional responsibilities. Fifth, tracking this metric is crucial in tight hiring markets because the organization that makes an offer first is likely to land top candidates.

Time to fill is also an important metric for candidate experience, as 23% of candidates lose interest in an employer if they don't hear back within one week, and a further 46% become disinterested if they don't hear anything within 1-2 weeks. More than three-quarters of applicants equate the hiring process with how a company values its employees.

To calculate time to fill for one position, determine the number of calendar days between the starting point (when the manager approves the role or the day the job is advertised) and the endpoint (when the candidate accepts the job offer or their first day of onboarding). For example, if Company X advertised a marketing manager role on January 1 and the candidate accepted the offer and started on March 1, the time to fill would be 60 days.

To calculate average time to fill, use this formula: sum of time to fill for all positions divided by the number of positions filled. For instance, if you hired five administrators and it took 15, 60, 10, 30, and 40 days respectively to hire them, your calculation would be (15 + 60 + 10 + 30 + 40) ÷ 5 = 31 days average time to fill.

You can also calculate time to fill per quarter (sum of time to fill for all positions in the quarter divided by number of positions filled in the quarter) and annually (sum of time to fill for all positions for the year divided by number of positions filled in the year). Organizations need to be consistent in their choices of starting and endpoint to ensure they have consistent data and can compare it against relevant benchmarks.

Time to fill and time to hire measure different aspects of the recruitment process and should not be confused or used interchangeably. Time to fill starts when a job requisition is approved by management and ends when the position is filled, measuring the entire recruitment timeline from a business planning perspective. Time to hire starts when a candidate applies for a job or enters the pipeline and ends when they accept the offer, measuring the efficiency of the interview and selection process from the candidate's perspective.

Time to fill focuses on the company's policies and steps for seeking, choosing, interviewing, communicating, and hiring new candidates, while time to hire focuses more on the candidate's experience of the hiring process. Time to fill typically lasts longer since it includes both the candidate's journey and the company's preparation phase, including job approval and posting stages.

Time to fill provides the big-picture view of how long it generally takes to fill roles and helps with workforce planning predictions, while time to hire narrows in on the efficiency of your hiring process and allows you to focus on aspects within your control once a candidate enters the pipeline. The average time to fill hovers around 44 days for most industries, though it can vary significantly by industry and role complexity.

Several factors influence time to fill metrics across organizations. Industry and position type significantly impact the timeline, as some roles are much more challenging to recruit for than others. Senior-level or specialized roles often take longer to fill than entry-level positions. For example, hiring a senior data scientist typically takes longer on average than hiring a contact center agent.

Job market conditions affect how quickly candidates apply, with high demand for specific skills extending the timeline. Internal approval processes, including delays in budget or position approvals, can extend time to fill. The quality and reach of candidate sourcing strategies significantly impact how quickly positions are filled, with some roles filled faster through agencies while others perform better with LinkedIn job advertisements.

Other factors include the number of qualified candidates available, how quickly feedback is shared between hiring managers and recruiters, the complexity of the interview process, and external factors like scheduling delays. A study showed that 62% of senior candidates have left a recruitment process due to scheduling delays alone.

Time to fill benchmarks vary significantly by industry, role level, and geographic location. The average time to fill sits at approximately 44 days for most companies, though this can range considerably based on specific circumstances. Workable conducted a study that provides industry-specific benchmarks, though organizations should also research local country benchmarks for more accurate comparisons.

Engineering industries often experience time to fill exceeding 60 days due to the specialized nature of technical roles. Senior leadership positions, such as vice president and above, typically require 85 days to fill. General business roles average around 45 days, while technical roles in product and engineering average 55 days.

It is best practice to measure against similar roles and departments rather than using a single organizational average, as this provides a more accurate representation of expected timelines. Internal improvement is valuable, but comparing against external benchmarks ensures your organization remains competitive in attracting top talent.

Organizations can reduce time to fill through 8 strategic approaches. First, reduce common bottlenecks by ensuring clear communication between recruiters and hiring managers with regular catch-ups and clear deliverables. Second, utilize recruitment technology to automate repetitive parts of the recruitment process, including applicant tracking systems that link job openings automatically to selected job boards and social media, interview scheduling tools, and digital reference checking systems.

Third, rediscover previous candidates by re-approaching qualified individuals in your applicant tracking system who were already pre-screened, saving time and money. Fourth, streamline job requisition approval workflows by establishing clear processes and using templates to reduce delays. Fifth, standardize and pre-approve job description templates to ensure consistency and reduce approval cycles.

Sixth, hire internally to eliminate sourcing and advertising time while tapping into talent already familiar with your organization. Seventh, implement employee referral programs with incentives like cash bonuses or gift cards to access qualified candidates faster with lower recruitment costs. Eighth, invest in employer branding by creating content that showcases company culture and professional development opportunities to attract candidates more quickly.

Yes, calculating time to fill per role and department provides more accurate and actionable insights than a single organizational average. Different roles have vastly different hiring timelines based on factors like required experience, skill specialization, and market availability. For example, it typically takes longer to hire a senior economist than a contact center agent.

Similarly, time to fill varies significantly when comparing departments such as IT versus legal due to differences in candidate pools, required qualifications, and internal processes. Measuring time to fill by role and department allows organizations to set realistic expectations, identify department-specific bottlenecks, and make more accurate workforce planning predictions.

This granular approach also helps HR teams understand which talent sources work best for specific roles and departments, enabling them to optimize their sourcing strategies accordingly.

Time to fill directly impacts business costs in multiple ways. First, the longer a role is advertised, the more money is spent on job posting fees across various platforms. Second, vacant positions require existing employees to work overtime or take on additional responsibilities, increasing payroll costs and creating burnout risk, which carries long-term financial consequences including turnover and reduced productivity.

Third, unfilled positions reduce overall organizational productivity as critical work goes undone or is distributed among already busy team members. Fourth, extended vacancies can decrease customer satisfaction due to reduced service levels, ultimately affecting company performance and profits. Fifth, prolonged recruitment processes increase recruiter and hiring manager time investment, representing significant opportunity costs.

Organizations that track and optimize time to fill save money by reducing these costs while simultaneously improving their ability to secure top talent before competitors make offers.

Time to start measures how long it takes to put an employee in their seat and have them begin work. It is calculated using the same formula as time to fill, then adding the absolute number of days between when the candidate accepted the offer and when they actually start work. This metric is the preferred measure of hiring managers who care most about when someone begins contributing to the team.

Time to start differs from time to fill because it extends beyond offer acceptance to include the notice period and transition time between jobs. This metric is commonly used in workforce planning, particularly in European countries where there is often a lag of one month or more between when a candidate accepts an offer and starts a new job.

While time to fill focuses on recruitment efficiency and when the hiring process concludes, time to start focuses on operational planning and when the business actually gains the new employee's contributions.

Time to fill is often compared to 2 related recruiting metrics:

Time to Fill vs. Time to Hire

Time to fill starts when a job requisition is approved and encompasses the entire recruitment process including job posting creation, candidate sourcing, and all selection activities. Time to hire starts when a candidate applies or enters the pipeline and focuses specifically on how efficiently the organization moves candidates through the interview and decision-making process. Time to fill provides insights into overall recruitment strategy and business planning, while time to hire reveals the quality of candidate engagement and internal process efficiency.

Time to Fill vs. Time to Start

Time to fill ends when a candidate accepts a job offer, marking the completion of the recruitment process. Time to start continues beyond this point to include the transition period until the employee's first day of work. Time to start is particularly valuable for hiring managers who need to know when they will actually have a functioning team member, while time to fill is more valuable for recruiters measuring their process efficiency and HR teams conducting workforce planning.