The Pipeline tab shows where candidates go after they apply: how many clear each stage, how long they sit there, and where they fall out. The Overview tab adds source effectiveness — which channels bring in people who actually get hired. Together they answer two different questions: is the pipeline healthy, and is it being fed well.
The pipeline funnel
The funnel lists your pipeline stages top to bottom with a count at each one, and a conversion rate from the stage above it. A headline figure gives the overall applied-to-hired rate. The shape tells you where the pipeline narrows hardest.
Read it for the steep drops. Some narrowing is the point of a funnel — you screen people out on purpose. A drop is worth attention when it's larger than the stage warrants: a big fall at the screening step can mean the job is attracting the wrong applicants; a thin offer-to-hired step can mean offers aren't landing.
The funnel has a group-by option — job, source, or recruiter — that splits one funnel into several side by side. Grouping by source is the fastest way to see that two channels with similar volume convert nothing alike.
Time in stage and drop-off
Two reports sit below the funnel and explain its shape.
Time in stage shows the average and median days candidates spend in each stage, drawn from the stage-transition history. Use the median — one candidate stuck for three months drags the average and tells you nothing typical. There's an optional threshold input: set it to a number of days and the report flags how many candidates in each stage have aged past it. Good for catching a screening step that's quietly become a waiting room.
Stage drop-off is the funnel's loss, stated directly. For each stage it shows how many candidates entered and how many left the pipeline from there instead of advancing. The funnel shows you the narrowing; drop-off names the stage doing it.
Source effectiveness
Source effectiveness lives on the Overview tab. It reports, per candidate source, the volume, the average match score, and the hire rate. The chart plots volume against quality so each source lands in one of four corners — high-volume-high-quality, low-volume-high-quality, high-volume-low-quality, and the corner you'd cut.
The point is to spend effort where it pays. A source bringing in hundreds of candidates who never get hired is costing you review time; a small source with a high hire rate deserves more of your attention, not less. There's a pass-through option that, instead of hire rate, measures how far candidates from each source typically progress — useful when you have few hires and need an earlier signal.
Where the sources come from matters here. Candidates from your public careers page carry the source recorded when they applied, and people you bring in through sourcing carry theirs. Source effectiveness is only as honest as that labelling — a pile of candidates all tagged "other" or "unknown" tells you nothing, so the report rewards keeping sources clean at intake.
What these reports support
- Funnel and drop-off — find the stage to fix. A bad screening drop is a job-post or sourcing problem; a bad offer drop is a compensation or closing problem.
- Time in stage — find the stage that's slow rather than selective, and decide whether it needs more reviewer time or a tighter process.
- Source effectiveness — decide where to spend sourcing and advertising effort next quarter.
Limits
These reports describe what happened; they don't explain why. A drop at the interview stage could be a weak applicant pool, an unrealistic job spec, or interviewers with an impossible bar — the team and SLA reports help separate those, but the funnel alone won't. Counts depend entirely on candidates being moved to the right status; a pipeline nobody updates produces a confident, wrong funnel. And small numbers lie — a "50% hire rate" from one source is two candidates and one hire. Treat a rate built on a handful of people as a hint, not a finding.