Names and aliases
demand fill rate, fulfilled demand share
Formula
matched_eligible_demand / eligible_demand × 100%
Metric card
| Unit | % |
|---|---|
| Data source | Aggregated demand, matching, and outcome events; the exact events are platform-specific. |
| Frequency | Aligned with the operating cycle; daily or weekly cohorts are common monitoring choices. |
| Segments | micro-market, category, geography, price band, demand cohort, channel |
Interpretation errors
- Using all visits as the denominator without defining qualified demand.
- Treating candidate discovery and completed transactions as the same event.
- Hiding segment failures behind an aggregate average.
Example
Calculated example: 80 matched units / 100 eligible demand units = 80%. The numbers are illustrative.
Use
Define the qualified-demand unit, the match event, and the acceptable time window before calculation. Keep numerator and denominator available for audit and segment the result at the level where matching can actually occur.
Anti-example
Fill rates cannot be compared when one category defines a match as a relevant candidate impression and another requires a completed payment.
Limitations
- The result is sensitive to eligibility, window, and match definition.
- A high fill rate does not guarantee quality, completion, or sustainable economics.
Related metrics
time-to-match, unmet-demand-share, cancellation-rate, match-quality
Context sources
These works provide two-sided-market context; the formula above remains an author-defined working definition.
- Jean-Charles Rochet, Jean Tirole. Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets (2003).
- Geoffrey G. Parker, Marshall W. Van Alstyne. Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design (2005).