How this estimate is built
No black box. Every euro above is a plain calculation from your inputs, clearly labelled modelling assumptions, and published evidence. Here is the logic behind each cost.
Hiringhires × mis-hire rate × (30% of salary + cost to re-hire)
Every hire that does not work out can create replacement and productivity costs. This model applies a conservative, editable assumption equal to 30% of first-year salary, plus the cost to recruit again.
Onboarding(ramp months × ~35% lost output) + (early leavers × cost to replace)
New hires are not fully productive while they ramp, and some leave in the first year. We value the ramp gap conservatively at about a third of salary over the ramp period, plus the cost of replacing early leavers.
Learningheadcount × training spend × share that does not stick
Training only pays back when people can apply it. Evidence supports spaced practice and reinforcement, while the share of learning spend that does not transfer remains an editable modelling assumption.
Sources & assumptions
- Cost per hire: SHRM's 2025 benchmarking survey reported an average nonexecutive cost per hire of US$5,475. The survey included 2,371 SHRM members and should be treated as a U.S. reference point, not a euro conversion. SHRM 2025 benchmarking ↗
- Cost of a bad hire: The calculator uses 30% of first-year salary as a conservative, editable modelling assumption. It is not presented as a universal benchmark because actual replacement and productivity costs vary substantially by role. SHRM recruitment cost analysis ↗
- Early attrition: CIPD's 2024 UK research found that 41% of recruiting employers had experienced a new employee resigning within the first 12 weeks. Your own early-turnover rate remains the preferred input. CIPD 2024 research ↗
- Onboarding duration: Gallup recommends treating onboarding as an extended process rather than a single orientation event. The appropriate duration depends on the role and organisation. Gallup onboarding guidance ↗
- Time to productivity: Microsoft Research documents the material ramp-up journey new hires experience before they match established employees. The calculator leaves the duration editable because it varies by role and industry. Microsoft Research ↗
- Learning transfer and retention: CIPD's evidence review draws on more than 500 studies and reports that spaced practice and periodic repetition support longer retention than lengthy one-off sessions. The calculator's loss percentage remains an editable assumption rather than a claimed universal rate. CIPD evidence review ↗
Sources were reviewed in July 2026. External benchmarks are reference points only. Currency, role mix, geography, and calculation methods vary, so your own workforce data should take priority wherever available.
Back to site