They're not synonyms. One includes sourcing, the other doesn't. Splitting them tells you whether the jam is in finding candidates or in your internal process.
The two metrics sound alike and get used as synonyms all the time. They measure different things, and when you split them they tell you where the problem is instead of just telling you there is one.
Time-to-fill counts from when the role is approved and opened to when someone accepts the offer. It includes the time it took you to find candidates.
Time-to-hire counts from when a candidate enters the process to when they accept. It measures how fast you move people once they're already in the pipeline.
A time-to-fill of 45 days with a time-to-hire of 12 means you spent 33 days getting candidates and 12 processing them. The bottleneck is in sourcing, not interviews.
| What you see | Where to act |
|---|---|
| High time-to-fill, low time-to-hire | Sourcing: channels, job description, the role's market |
| Low time-to-fill, high time-to-hire | Internal process: hiring-manager feedback, scheduling, offer approval |
| Both high | Both fronts, starting with whichever adds the most days |
| Both low but low acceptance | Not speed: it's the offer, the package or the candidate experience |
Reporting calculates both metrics from what already happens in the pipeline, with no separate date entry. You see time per stage, hiring-manager response time and the median by role type, and you can share the dashboard with leadership or the client.
Reporting calculates time-to-fill and time-to-hire from what already happens in your pipeline. 14-day free trial.