# Which Recruiting Automation tools significantly reduce the time to fill open positions?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">We're researching which <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/recruiting-automation">Recruiting Automation</a> tools significantly reduce the time to fill open positions, since "significantly" is a claim worth checking against actual reported numbers rather than general efficiency language.</p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Three names stood out with the clearest quantified claims: Humanly, Braintrust AIR, and Ceipal ATS. Here's the complete list:</p><ol>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/humanly/reviews"><strong>Humanly</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Customers report up to 8x faster time-to-hire, with automated engagement meaning a candidate who applies at 9 pm can be on the calendar by morning.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/braintrust-air/reviews"><strong>Braintrust AIR</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Reduces time to hire from months to days by instantly matching pre-vetted candidates and conducting the first-round interview automatically.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/ceipal-ats/reviews"><strong>Ceipal ATS</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Its Recruiter Assistant automates job creation, outreach, scheduling, and evaluation end-to-end, with a reported 70% growth in talent pool reach and a significant cut in time-to-submission.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/jobdiva/reviews"><strong>JobDiva</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Automated resume harvesting and Boolean search let recruiters identify relevant candidates faster than manual sourcing, with reviewers describing meaningful time savings on candidate search specifically.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/100hires/reviews"><strong>100Hires</strong></a><strong>:</strong> AI scoring and ranking of every applicant means a small team can move through a pipeline at the pace of several full-time recruiters.</li>
</ol><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">For teams tracking time-to-fill as a hard metric, which part of the funnel actually got faster, sourcing, screening, or scheduling, and which stayed roughly the same?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 8 days ago
- Author title: Writer
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;The biggest gains usually come from compressing the handoffs between sourcing, screening, and scheduling rather than speeding up just one step. I’d compare stage-by-stage cycle time before and after rollout to see where automation is actually reducing time-to-fill versus simply shifting the bottleneck downstream.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 4 days ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4