Quality of Hire shouldn't need the one person who knows how to pull the numbers.
Every people-ops team has one person who can actually get Time-to-Hire and Quality of Hire out of the system. When they're on holiday, the numbers don't exist. Nexus measures a hire on purpose: one 90-day pulse, both sides asked, no reporting builder required.
Ask a people-ops team how last quarter's hiring actually went and you'll usually get a feeling, not a number. Ask for Quality of Hire, time-to-fill, or time-to-hire specifically, and the room goes quiet. Except for one person.
Every team has that person: they live in the reporting builder, they know which fields are trustworthy and which are half-filled, and when they're on holiday the metrics effectively don't exist.
We spoke to a number of people-ops professionals working with Ashby and Greenhouse, and the pattern held almost every time. Barring the single expert who knows how to pull the numbers, most people felt either overwhelmed by the reporting surface or simply unable to answer a direct question about TTH, QoH, or TTF. The data was in there somewhere. Getting it out was a specialist job. We think that's backwards, so we built these metrics to be readable by whoever happens to be looking, the non-technical recruiting coordinator as easily as the people-analytics lead.
Quality of Hire fails the same way every time
The incumbents are right about the problem, even if their fix is heavier than it needs to be. QoH historically dies of over-formula-ing. Inputs are spread across the HRIS and the ATS, someone builds a weighted composite nobody trusts, there's no clear owner, and there's no obvious action at the end of it. It becomes the metric everyone wants and nobody actually looks at.
So we did the opposite of a formula. One pulse, 90 days in. Not a 30/60/90 survey cadence that decays into inbox noise, just a single nudge that lands 90 days after the new hire's start date, not 90 days after you clicked "hired" (those can be weeks apart). The hiring manager gets one question: is this hire what you expected? One to five, plus an optional note. That's the whole thing. The sticky ritual is the nudge showing up at the right moment, not a target someone set months earlier and forgot.
The half of Quality of Hire every other tool is blind to
At 90 days the new hire gets asked too, over the same portal they applied through: did the role turn out to be what the process promised? A one-sided ATS structurally can't ask this. It never kept a relationship with the person after the offer went out. Nexus did, because the portal has been two-sided since the first click. So the manager's read on the hire now sits next to the hire's read on the role, on the same card. That candidate-side signal is the piece the incumbents can't ship as a fast-follow, because you can't bolt a second side onto a one-sided system.
The new-hire score is sensitive, since it's partly a reflection on the manager, so it isn't sprayed across the org. It sits behind a can see new-hire feedback permission that a People or Culture seat can hold without full admin, and it's withheld server-side, never just hidden in the browser.
Close the loop back to the interview
Every hire came through a panel that predicted something. Nexus maps the interview scorecards from that panel (strong-no through strong-yes) onto the same one-to-five scale and holds the prediction next to the 90-day actual. A panel that ran hot, everyone said strong-yes, and then the hire cools to a three at 90 days, that's a calibration miss the manager can actually learn from. No new survey for it either. We already had the scorecards.
Early on, the value of Quality of Hire isn't the decimal. It's the conversation each pulse forces, the one most teams never have.
Native, so the coordinator and the analyst read the same number
This is the part that makes it accessible. TTF, TTH, and QoH live in one place and are computed the same way: medians, so a single 75-day outlier req doesn't drag the headline. Time-to-fill anchors at job-open (the forecasting number the business wants), time-to-hire anchors at the candidate's apply date (the journey number), and both split cleanly when a req hires more than one person instead of freezing on the first hire. The org rollup on the Analytics page puts the four numbers in front of an exec at a glance. No report to build, no field to know, no specialist to wait on.
Keeping these metrics deliberately unsophisticated is the feature, not a limitation we're apologizing for. A number a coordinator can read and trust on a Tuesday afternoon beats a composite index that only one person can produce and only after a support ticket.
We're early, and we'll keep saying so
Same disclosure as last time: we don't have a benchmark set of QoH scores to wave around yet, and we're not going to invent one. What we have is a metric that fires on its own, asks both sides of the hire, closes the loop back to the interview, and doesn't need a data scientist to read. The decimal matters more as the data accrues. Right now the win is that every pulse forces a conversation most teams never get around to having.