Salary.com

Name: Salary.com
Brand: Salary.com
Rating: 4.4 (1070 reviews)

Get It Right

Est 1999|Valuation $67.1M|Raised $67M

LinkedIn 26K|Website|Web traffic 761K|FTEs 300|HQ Waltham, Massachusetts, US

MarketsHuman Resource Information Systems (HRIS)Payroll & Compensation Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Salary.com vs Payscale - Third-party comparisons indicate Payscale offers a different onboarding and UX profile; anecdotal claims about relative pricing vary and public pricing remains limited. Salary.com vs Mercer - Mercer publishes prices for specific surveys/modules, which can simplify budgeting for those specific purchases. Salary.com emphasizes integrated workflows and HR-sourced data, whereas Mercer emphasizes the survey-participation model. Salary.com vs WTW/Aon/Mercer “survey stacks” - Large enterprises often purchase multiple surveys (e.g., Aon Radford, WTW, Mercer) and manage them in a survey management tool. Salary.com offers an alternative by combining data and tooling in a single platform.

Adoption / market presence indicators

High review volume on G2 indicates broad usage across segments.
Gartner Peer Insights sample is very small, so avoid over-interpreting that rating.

	Salary.com	Payscale (Payfactors / MarketPay)	Mercer (iMercer / Mercer Benchmark Database)
Starting Price	Mostly quote-based; report-based offers exist via partners (e.g., SHRM partner reports with published partner pricing)	Quote-based; offers entry points and trial marketing options	Survey modules have published prices; examples show substantial per-module pricing for participants/non-participants
Best For	Organizations seeking an integrated compensation platform (benchmarking + structures + pay equity + job architecture + planning)	Organizations prioritizing user experience/onboarding and multi-source pricing workflows	Organizations needing structured survey rigor/participation economics and industry benchmarks
Key Strength	Integrated compensation management suite; HR-reported datasets and job matching taxonomy; APIs	Product packaging around pay strategy workflows; perceived stronger onboarding/support in third-party comparisons	Structured survey products with transparent module pricing and participation incentives
Key Weakness	Reported UI and learning-curve issues; pricing; coverage gaps for niche jobs; reputation concerns on consumer job listings	Higher total cost in some cases; survey-centric model may lag fast-moving markets	Can be expensive; participation burden; less of a single SaaS suite without integrations

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Salary.com vs Payscale

Third-party comparisons indicate Payscale offers a different onboarding and UX profile; anecdotal claims about relative pricing vary and public pricing remains limited.

Salary.com vs Mercer

Mercer publishes prices for specific surveys/modules, which can simplify budgeting for those specific purchases. Salary.com emphasizes integrated workflows and HR-sourced data, whereas Mercer emphasizes the survey-participation model.

Salary.com vs WTW/Aon/Mercer “survey stacks”

Large enterprises often purchase multiple surveys (e.g., Aon Radford, WTW, Mercer) and manage them in a survey management tool. Salary.com offers an alternative by combining data and tooling in a single platform.

Adoption / market presence indicators

High review volume on G2 indicates broad usage across segments.
Gartner Peer Insights sample is very small, so avoid over-interpreting that rating.

	Salary.com	Payscale (Payfactors / MarketPay)	Mercer (iMercer / Mercer Benchmark Database)
Starting Price	Mostly quote-based; report-based offers exist via partners (e.g., SHRM partner reports with published partner pricing)	Quote-based; offers entry points and trial marketing options	Survey modules have published prices; examples show substantial per-module pricing for participants/non-participants
Best For	Organizations seeking an integrated compensation platform (benchmarking + structures + pay equity + job architecture + planning)	Organizations prioritizing user experience/onboarding and multi-source pricing workflows	Organizations needing structured survey rigor/participation economics and industry benchmarks
Key Strength	Integrated compensation management suite; HR-reported datasets and job matching taxonomy; APIs	Product packaging around pay strategy workflows; perceived stronger onboarding/support in third-party comparisons	Structured survey products with transparent module pricing and participation incentives
Key Weakness	Reported UI and learning-curve issues; pricing; coverage gaps for niche jobs; reputation concerns on consumer job listings	Higher total cost in some cases; survey-centric model may lag fast-moving markets	Can be expensive; participation burden; less of a single SaaS suite without integrations