Top Metros for Budget Analysts: Washington, DC Leads as Smaller Markets Offer Higher Pay

Across the U.S., budget analysts earn a national median salary of $91,640, with 47,160 people employed in the occupation and a national projected employment growth rate of 1.0%. Against that backdrop, all ten of LaborCove’s top-ranked metros for this role show median salaries above the national figure, but they differ substantially in employment counts and Geography Scores. Washington–Arlington–Alexandria tops the list with the largest employment count among the top metros and the highest LaborCove Geography Score. Several smaller markets, including Iowa City and Ann Arbor, appear in the top 10 despite relatively modest employment, reflecting that these rankings combine salary, employment, and other factors into a single Geography Score. Taken together, the data suggests that the leading metro destinations for budget analysts are not interchangeable. Some emphasize scale, others emphasize very high median pay, and their LaborCove Geography Scores capture those differences rather than mirroring salary alone.

Before comparing metros, it helps to anchor the numbers to national benchmarks for budget analysts. Nationally, budget analysts have a median annual salary of $91,640 and total employment of 47,160. The national projected employment growth rate for this occupation is 1.0%, which applies to the occupation as a whole rather than any specific state or metro. Every metro in the LaborCove top 10 for budget analysts has a median salary above the national median. The metros in this ranking also vary widely in employment counts, from 40 budget analysts in Iowa City to 4,100 in Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, illustrating that high Geography Scores can arise in both large and small markets.

Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV ranks #1 in LaborCove’s metro list for budget analysts with a Geography Score of 79.19, the highest score among the top 10 metros. It also has the largest employment count in the list at 4,100. The metro’s median salary of $125,050 is higher than the national median of $91,640. Washington–Arlington–Alexandria also has a higher median salary than New York–Newark–Jersey City, which stands at $96,340, and higher than Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, which stands at $96,870. Despite not having the single highest median salary in the top 10, Washington–Arlington–Alexandria out-scores all other metros in the Geography Score. This shows that the #1 ranking reflects more than pay alone, since other metros with higher salaries receive lower Geography Scores.

Several metros in the top 10 have higher median salaries than Washington–Arlington–Alexandria but lower Geography Scores. Iowa City, IA has the highest median salary in the top 10 at $134,850, which is higher than Washington–Arlington–Alexandria’s $125,050. Ann Arbor, MI and San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA also have higher median salaries than Washington–Arlington–Alexandria at $127,860 and $131,730, respectively. All three metros, however, receive lower Geography Scores than Washington–Arlington–Alexandria. These smaller or more specialized markets also have relatively modest employment counts compared with the #1 metro. Iowa City has 40 budget analysts, Ann Arbor has 90, and San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara has 340, each below Washington–Arlington–Alexandria’s 4,100. Their presence in the top 10 reflects that LaborCove’s rankings recognize high compensation even when employment counts are smaller.

New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA, and Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA illustrate how large coastal markets compare when looking at salary, employment, and Geography Score together. Among these three metros, New York–Newark–Jersey City has the largest employment count at 1,950, followed by Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim at 1,070 and San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont at 760. New York–Newark–Jersey City’s median salary of $96,340 and Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim’s median salary of $96,870 are both above the national median but below San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont’s $117,360. Despite these differences, all three rank below Washington–Arlington–Alexandria in the Geography Score. New York–Newark–Jersey City has a score of 56.41, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont has 54.77, and Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim has 46.90. This highlights that even large employment centers with above-national pay do not automatically reach the very top of LaborCove’s rankings for this occupation.

The remaining metros in the top 10—Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell, and Huntsville—show additional combinations of pay, employment, and Geography Scores. Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue has a median salary of $104,090 and employment of 910, while Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell has a median salary of $99,880 and employment of 1,170. Huntsville has a median salary of $113,400 and employment of 520. All three metros have median salaries above the national median of $91,640. On Geography Score, Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue stands at 48.11, slightly ahead of Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim at 46.90 and Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell at 46.88, while Huntsville is close behind at 46.37. These results underscore that metros with similar scores can nevertheless differ considerably in both salary levels and employment counts.

Taken together, the top 10 metros for budget analysts show that LaborCove’s rankings integrate multiple factors. Median salaries in these metros range from the mid-$90,000s to the mid-$130,000s, and employment counts range from a few dozen to several thousand. The national projected growth rate of 1.0% for budget analysts provides a broad context for the occupation, but it does not describe growth or future hiring patterns in individual metros. Instead, the Geography Scores and current salary and employment data offer a snapshot of how markets compare today. When using these rankings, consider what matters more for your situation: a metro with higher employment counts, a metro with very high pay even at smaller scale, or a metro whose Geography Score aligns with your preferences when combined with non-quantitative factors outside the scope of LaborCove’s data.

LaborCove’s metro rankings for budget analysts are based on authoritative labor-market data and our internal Geography Score methodology. For this article, median annual salaries and employment counts for budget analysts reflect Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations as of May 2025. The national projected employment growth rate of 1.0% is a separate national occupational projection, not an OEWS observation and not a geographic forecast. The Geography Score summarizes how each metro performs across multiple dimensions relevant to labor-market analysis, including compensation and employment scale, but the precise contribution of each metric to the score is internal to LaborCove and not broken out here. Scores are comparable across metros within this article’s dataset, and higher scores indicate a higher LaborCove ranking for this occupation. These rankings should be considered alongside your own career priorities. LaborCove’s data shows how median pay, employment counts, and Geography Scores differ across metros, but it does not capture personal factors such as preferences for specific employers, neighborhoods, or non-work considerations.