// loading
Time-to-fill, by posting. And the drop-off between Assessed → Shortlist, which is where everyone leaks the most candidates. Then a funnel that breaks down by source, scenario, and rubric weakness. No “executive dashboard.” No CSV-of-mysteries. Eight charts a recruiter would actually screenshot for the weekly review.
included in Recruiter seat · CSV export · webhook to your warehouse
198 candidates assessed · 31 shortlisted. That’s a 16% pass-through: 6 points below your org’s 90d median. The detail page below ranks the rubric dimensions where the dropouts scored lowest.
From posting open to accepted offer. Org median is 41d on similar postings. The 90d trend on the next card.
of shortlisted candidates had at least one replay watched by someone other than the inviter. The “second-pair-of-eyes” metric we look at most.
Every funnel has one stage where the drop-off is bigger than the rest. For most teams it’s Assessed → Shortlist: the moment a recruiter has to actually decide. We surface that on the dashboard, in plain English. Then we surface the rubric dimension the dropouts scored lowest on, so you can see if it’s a real signal or a recruiter habit.
| dim | median · dropouts | median · shortlist | delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagnosis | 78 | 86 | -8 |
| path | 74 | 82 | -8 |
| tool | 71 | 81 | -10 |
| communication | 52 | 79 | -27 |
| recovery | 69 | 76 | -7 |
An org-wide time-to-fill number is a fiction. A helpdesk role and a senior sysadmin role have nothing in common: averaging them produces a number nobody believes. So we track per-posting, per-track, and you can roll up if you really want to: but the default view is the one that helps the conversation with the hiring manager.
The leak-stage card surfaces something the standard dashboard hides. That’s the only chart that changes behavior.
from product brief · 2026private beta · no credit card · sandbox in under a minute