Top Metros for Compensation and Benefits Specialists: New York Ranks #1 While California Cities Pay the Most

Across the top 10 metros, LaborCove’s data shows clear differences between high‑salary markets, large employment centers, and overall rankings. Some metros stand out for pay well above the national median, while others are notable for larger reported employment counts or higher Geography Scores. Nationally, compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists have a median annual salary of $78,210, with 112,380 people employed in the occupation and a projected national employment growth rate of 5.3%. Against that backdrop, most of the top 10 metros report median salaries above the national figure, and the highest-ranked metro has the largest supplied local employment count among them, but smaller metros with strong salaries also appear high in the ranking.

Nationally, compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists have a median annual salary of $78,210 and total employment of 112,380. The occupation also has a projected national employment growth rate of 5.3%, which applies to the occupation in the U.S. overall rather than to any specific state or metro. Among the top 10 metros, several have median salaries clearly above the national benchmark. San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara reports the highest median salary in the top 10 at $133,700, while San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont stands at $102,780 and Boston–Cambridge–Newton at $99,150. All three exceed the national median of $78,210 by wide margins. Other metros in the top 10 are closer to the national median. Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, at $79,270, and Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, at $79,990, both sit just above the national figure, while Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell, at $70,390, has a median salary below the national level despite ranking eighth in LaborCove’s metro list.

New York–Newark–Jersey City holds the #1 spot in LaborCove’s metro rankings with a Geography Score of 71.28. It also has the largest supplied metro employment count in the top 10 at 9,900 and a median annual salary of $89,130. Compared with the national benchmarks, New York’s median salary of $89,130 is higher than the national median of $78,210, while its reported employment of 9,900 is smaller than the national employment count of 112,380. Within the top 10, New York’s employment count is larger than the other metros with supplied employment data, including Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim at 4,070, Chicago–Naperville–Elgin at 3,500, Boston–Cambridge–Newton at 2,630, Washington–Arlington–Alexandria at 2,620, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont at 2,440, and Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue at 2,220. The New York metro’s #1 ranking also illustrates that the highest LaborCove Geography Score does not automatically align with the single highest salary: San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara ranks #2 overall but has a higher median salary of $133,700 compared with New York’s $89,130.

Three California metros appear in the top five: San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara (#2), Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim (#3), and San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont (#4). All three report median salaries above both the national median of $78,210 and New York–Newark–Jersey City’s median of $89,130. San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara stands out with a median salary of $133,700 and a Geography Score of 61.00. San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont reports a median salary of $102,780 and a Geography Score of 52.22, while Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim has a median salary of $97,310 and a Geography Score of 53.43. Among these three, San Jose has the highest median salary and the highest Geography Score, while San Francisco reports a higher median salary than Los Angeles but a slightly lower Geography Score. Employment counts, where supplied, show further differences. Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim has 4,070 reported positions, which is a larger employment count than San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara’s 770 and also larger than San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont’s 2,440. All three California metros, however, have smaller employment counts than New York–Newark–Jersey City’s 9,900 and than the national total of 112,380 reported for the occupation.

Several metros in the middle of the top‑10 ranking have median salaries that are closer to the national figure than the very high‑pay California metros, but they still meet or exceed the national median. Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington (#6) reports a median salary of $79,270, which is slightly higher than the national median of $78,210. Chicago–Naperville–Elgin (#9) reports a median salary of $79,990, also modestly higher than the national level. Washington–Arlington–Alexandria (#7) combines a median salary of $91,660 with an employment count of 2,620 and a Geography Score of 45.17. Its median salary is higher than New York–Newark–Jersey City’s $89,130 and higher than the national median. Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue (#10) has a median salary of $85,910, which is higher than the national median and paired with an employment count of 2,220. Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell is a different case: it ranks #8 with a Geography Score of 43.93 but has a median salary of $70,390, which is below the national median of $78,210. This makes Atlanta the only metro in the top 10 with a median salary below the national level, based on the supplied data.

LaborCove’s Geography Scores show that metro rankings are not simply ordered by salary or employment. San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara provides a clear example: it has the highest median salary in the top 10 at $133,700 and a Geography Score of 61.00, yet it ranks #2 behind New York–Newark–Jersey City, whose median salary is $89,130 and whose Geography Score is higher at 71.28. Similarly, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont and Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim both report median salaries above New York’s level—$102,780 and $97,310, respectively—but rank below New York with Geography Scores of 52.22 and 53.43 compared to New York’s 71.28. Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, with a median salary of $91,660 that is higher than New York’s $89,130, ranks #7 with a Geography Score of 45.17, again illustrating that higher pay does not automatically mean a higher Geography Score. Employment differences also do not line up directly with ranking order. For example, Chicago–Naperville–Elgin has an employment count of 3,500, which is larger than San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont’s 2,440, but Chicago ranks #9 with a Geography Score of 43.04, below San Francisco’s #4 ranking and 52.22 score. These patterns underscore that the LaborCove Geography Score captures a broader set of factors than salary and employment alone, even though the specific weightings are not provided in the supplied data.

LaborCove’s metro rankings for compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists are built from authoritative labor‑market data combined with the proprietary LaborCove Geography Score. For this article, national and metro figures for median annual salary and employment reflect Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations as of May 2025. The projected 5.3% employment growth is a separate national‑level occupational projection, not an OEWS observation and not a forecast for any individual metro area. LaborCove’s Geography Score provides a single comparable value for each metro based on its methodology. In this dataset, each of the 10 highlighted metros has an associated Geography Score, a ranking position, and a reported median salary; several also have reported employment counts. Because the internal weighting of inputs into the Geography Score is not supplied, this article treats the score as a summary result without attributing it to any one factor such as pay or employment. The rankings and comparisons here are tools for understanding how metros differ in the data. They should be weighed alongside personal factors such as role fit and individual preferences, which are outside the scope of the LaborCove dataset.