Although both terms are regularly used interchangeably, they really do have a fundamentally different function. And it is precisely that difference that determines whether HR data mainly provides interesting reports, or actually helps to make better decisions.

Let's start with a metric. An HR metric is a measurement that provides insight into a specific process or phenomenon within HR.

For example:

• the average time to first screening;
• the number of applicants per vacancy;
• absenteeism during the past month;
• the number of training hours completed.

Metrics are descriptive. They mainly answer the question: “What do we see in our data that happened in the recent past?” They are data points that give you a feel for what happened in the (recent) past within your organisation.

But metrics by themselves do not tell you whether your organisation is performing well.

And that is where the KPI comes into the picture. A KPI (short for Key Performance Indicator) goes one step further. A KPI links data to a strategic objective. It is an indicator that allows you to monitor whether your organisation is achieving the desired impact.

A good KPI is always formulated according to the SMART principle and supports a specific business objective. For example:

“The average time-to-fill for critical vacancies decreases by 20% by the end of 2026.”

This KPI not only states what you measure, but above all why you measure it and what ambition is linked to it. The central question then becomes: “Are we on track to achieve our objective?” It is more than simply measuring, which is what you do with a metric.

Are metrics therefore less important than KPIs? Certainly not. The two simply cannot exist without each other. To understand why a KPI is improving or deteriorating, you need the many underlying metrics.

Let's take the example of time-to-fill again.

When that KPI deteriorates, you want to know what is causing it. You then look at, for example:

• the time between application and first screening;
• the duration of interviews;
• the number of candidates who drop out;
• the time until feedback from hiring managers.

These metrics provide context. They help explain why the KPI is moving and where you need to take action.

A pitfall we often see is that organisations define dozens of KPIs. As a result, they lose their strategic value.

A good rule of thumb is to work with only a limited number of HR KPIs at organisational level. Often, three to five KPIs that are directly aligned with the business strategy are sufficient.

Below these, there can be dozens of HR metrics that provide additional insight and help to take the right actions.

Another important difference lies in the time horizon.

Ideally, KPIs do not change every quarter. They follow the strategic direction of the organisation and often remain relevant for several years. At Starfish, we usually aim for KPIs that remain in place for about three years.

Metrics are much more dynamic.

New processes, AI applications or changing HR questions can lead you to start measuring different data. That is precisely the strength of metrics: they help uncover new insights and can eventually lead you to review your KPIs as well.

The real added value of HR data only emerges when metrics and KPIs reinforce each other. Metrics provide insight. KPIs provide direction.

Together, they ensure that HR not only reports on what is happening, but can also actively contribute to the organisation’s strategic objectives.

Because ultimately, HR analytics is not about collecting as much data as possible. It is about collecting the right data in order to make better decisions based on it.

Would you like help defining your HR KPIs or HR metrics? Be sure to subscribe to our bi-monthly newsletter for tips, trends, and insights, or to contact us.