The ROI of AI Recruiting: Real Numbers from 50 Companies

<p>Marketing claims are easy. Data is harder. We analyzed anonymized hiring data from 50 companies across Series A through Series D to understand the actual impact of switching to AI-native recruiting.</p> <h2>Time to Hire</h2> <p><strong>Before Kasp:</strong> Average time from role opening to accepted offer was 47 days.</p> <p><strong>With Kasp:</strong> Average dropped to 18 days — a 62% reduction.</p> <p>The biggest improvement was in the sourcing phase. Finding qualified candidates went from 2-3 weeks to under 48 hours with Ellie's autonomous sourcing.</p> <h2>Cost per Hire</h2> <p><strong>Agency fees:</strong> Companies previously spending $30K-$50K per senior hire in agency fees now spend $199-$999/month total — regardless of how many hires they make.</p> <p><strong>Recruiter time:</strong> Internal recruiters report spending 60% less time on sourcing, allowing them to focus on candidate experience and closing.</p> <h2>Quality Metrics</h2> <p><strong>Interview-to-offer ratio:</strong> Improved from 5:1 to 2.5:1, meaning fewer wasted interviews for both the team and candidates.</p> <p><strong>90-day retention:</strong> 94% of hires made through Kasp are still employed after 90 days, compared to an industry average of 88%.</p> <p><strong>Candidate NPS:</strong> Candidates rate their experience at 8.2/10, citing transparency and speed as top factors.</p> <h2>Where It Doesn't Help</h2> <p>AI recruiting has less impact on executive-level searches (VP+) where the talent pool is small and relationships matter most. It also underperforms in highly regulated industries where compliance requirements add process overhead that can't be automated.</p>