Time to fill vs. time to hire: what’s the difference (and why it matters)
Reading time: 6 minutes
Time to fill is one of the most widely used recruitment metrics. It shows how quickly roles are filled, how predictable hiring is, and how efficiently recruitment is organised. Especially for growing organisations, it plays an important role in planning and scaling recruitment.
At the same time, recruitment teams often also refer to time to hire. While the two metrics are frequently used interchangeably, they measure different parts of the recruitment process and provide different insights.
In this article, we explain the difference between time to fill and time to hire, what each metric measures, when to use them, and how they complement each other when evaluating recruitment performance.
Contents
Table of Contents
Time to fill vs. time to hire: what’s the difference? They measure different stages of recruitment and complement each other.
What is time to fill? Measures the time from opening a vacancy to offer acceptance and supports planning and process insights.
What is time to hire? Measures the time from first candidate contact to acceptance and reflects candidate experience.
Why speed alone isn’t a complete KPI Speed without context can lead to lower quality and candidate drop-off.
Which metric fits which hiring goal? The right choice depends on growth, scarcity and the type of recruitment.
How Magnet.me looks at this Sustainable improvements in time to fill come from relevant matching and data-driven decisions.
What is time to fill?
Time to fill measures the period between opening a vacancy and a candidate accepting the offer.
From role opening → offer acceptance
This metric provides insight into:
Recruitment process efficiency
Internal lead times
Capacity and workforce planning
Time to fill is particularly useful during periods of growth, workforce planning, or when hiring larger numbers of similar roles. A low time to fill shows that recruitment is well organised and predictable.
The risk appears when speed becomes the only success metric. In that case, focus can shift away from matching and quality.
What is time to hire?
Time to hire measures the time between first contact with a candidate and offer acceptance.
First contact → offer accepted
This metric reflects how smooth and attractive the recruitment process feels from a candidate’s perspective. A long time to hire increases the risk of candidate drop-off, especially for scarce profiles.
Employer branding and matching play a key role here. When the story, culture and content of an organisation truly resonate:
Candidates engage more quickly
Less persuasion is needed
The likelihood of mutual fit increases
Time to hire is therefore also a quality indicator for candidate experience.
Time to fill vs. time to hire: the core differences
Time to fill
Starts when a vacancy opens
Focuses on internal processes
Supports planning and predictability
Time to hire
Starts at first candidate contact
Focuses on the candidate experience
Reflects quality and employer brand
Both hiring metrics are valuable as long as they are used intentionally.
Why speed alone isn’t a complete recruitment KPI
Speed matters, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Focusing on speed alone can result in:
Lower quality of hire
More mismatches and early turnover
Damage to the candidate experience
Measuring recruitment performance requires multiple metrics viewed in context.
Which metric fits which recruitment goal?
Scaling teams: prioritise time to fill, supported by time to hire
Scarce profiles: focus on time to hire and candidate experience
Campus recruitment: quality, fit and potential matter more than speed
Looking at metrics together leads to a more realistic view of recruitment performance.
How Magnet.me looks at this
At Magnet.me, time to fill is a key impact metric, because it reflects how structurally efficient recruitment is set up. At the same time, we don’t see it as a lever you simply pull, but as the outcome of how organisations manage talent, data and relationships.
Many companies struggle with fragmented talent data. Candidate profiles become outdated, disappear from ATS systems, and GDPR makes it difficult to stay connected with talent over time. As a result, recruiters are forced to start from scratch again and again, driving up costs, slowing down hiring, and keeping recruitment highly transactional. Employer branding often remains limited to isolated campaigns, instead of building a lasting talent pool.
Magnet.me addresses these core challenges by turning recruitment into a relationship. Candidates keep their own profiles up to date and stay connected with employers that are genuinely relevant to them. This enables organisations to build their own talentpool, rather than repeatedly re-acquiring the same talent.
By matching employers and talent on interests, culture and content, relevance and trust are created from the very first interaction. Candidates enter the funnel warmer, sourcing requires less manual effort, and hiring decisions are made faster and with more confidence. This leads to measurable impact, including
10 x stronger long-term talent relationships,
80% lower cost per hire
30% faster time to fill.
Not by forcing speed, but by solving the underlying problems in recruitment.
Conclusion
Time to fill shows how efficiently your recruitment process operates. Time to hire shows how candidates experience it. Organisations that want to improve recruitment use both metrics together.
Not by chasing speed for its own sake, but by designing recruitment so that speed becomes the result of quality and matching.
Better recruitment starts with the right match. Discover what Magnet.me can mean for your recruitment.
