Hiring has always been expensive.
But in 2025, it doesn’t have to be inefficient.
Recent data from Technology Radius shows a clear contrast between manual recruitment and ATS-enabled hiring. The numbers tell a simple story. Organizations using an Applicant Tracking System (ATS) significantly reduce their cost-per-hire compared to teams relying on manual processes.
This isn’t about trends.
It’s about measurable impact.
Understanding Cost-Per-Hire
Cost-per-hire includes more than job ads.
It covers:
-
Recruiter time and admin effort
-
Sourcing and agency fees
-
Interview coordination
-
Technology and tooling
-
Lost productivity from open roles
When hiring is manual, these costs add up quietly.
And quickly.
Manual Hiring: Where Costs Pile Up
Manual recruitment relies heavily on people and spreadsheets.
That creates friction.
Common cost drivers include:
-
Resume screening done entirely by hand
-
Back-and-forth interview scheduling
-
Heavy reliance on external agencies
-
Poor visibility into hiring metrics
Each delay extends time-to-hire.
Each delay increases cost.
Manual hiring doesn’t just cost more money.
It costs time and momentum.
ATS-Enabled Hiring: Where Savings Begin
An ATS automates the repetitive parts of recruiting.
That changes everything.
According to the data, ATS adoption can reduce cost-per-hire from roughly $3,500 to under $2,000.
Here’s why.
Key Areas Where ATS Cuts Costs
-
Automated resume screening reduces recruiter hours
-
Centralized pipelines reduce duplication
-
Built-in scheduling speeds up interviews
-
Better sourcing reduces agency dependence
-
Analytics reveal bottlenecks early
Small efficiencies stack up.
The result is major savings.
Time-to-Hire and Cost Go Hand in Hand
The longer a role stays open, the more it costs.
ATS platforms help by:
-
Shortening hiring cycles
-
Improving candidate response rates
-
Reducing drop-offs in the funnel
Faster hiring means:
-
Less lost productivity
-
Lower recruiter workload
-
Better candidate experience
Speed isn’t just convenient.
It’s economical.
Recruiter Productivity Improves Too
With an ATS, recruiters spend less time on admin.
More time goes to:
-
Candidate engagement
-
Quality screening
-
Stakeholder communication
-
Strategic hiring decisions
That increases output without increasing headcount.
Efficiency replaces exhaustion.
What This Means for HR Leaders
The takeaway is clear.
Manual hiring is expensive by design.
ATS-enabled hiring is efficient by default.
In competitive talent markets, reducing cost-per-hire isn’t optional.
It’s a strategic advantage.
Teams that modernize hiring technology:
-
Spend less
-
Hire faster
-
Scale better
Final Thought
An ATS doesn’t replace recruiters.
It removes friction.
And when friction disappears, cost-per-hire drops with it.
The data proves it.
Top comments (0)