Best States for Architectural and Engineering Managers: California Tops Rankings as New Mexico Offers Highest Pay

Across the top 10 states for architectural and engineering managers, LaborCove’s results show that high salaries, sizable employment counts, and strong Geography Scores do not always move together. Some states rank higher with comparatively smaller employment bases, while others earn strong positions with salaries closer to the national median. Nationally, architectural and engineering managers have a median annual salary of $171,270 and employment of 220,260, with a projected national employment growth rate of 3.8%. Against that backdrop, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington anchor the top five state rankings, each combining different balances of pay, employment, and Geography Scores. The analysis below walks through how each of the top 10 states stands out numerically—starting with California’s leading Geography Score and largest reported state employment count, then contrasting high‑salary but smaller‑employment states like New Mexico with larger markets such as Texas and New York.

LaborCove’s national benchmark for architectural and engineering managers shows a median annual salary of $171,270 and employment of 220,260 positions. The national projected employment growth rate for this occupation is 3.8%, reflecting expectations for architectural and engineering managers across the entire U.S. economy. This national view provides a baseline for interpreting the state results below. When the analysis notes that a state’s median salary is above or below the national level, the comparison is always to the $171,270 national benchmark and does not imply anything about cost of living or after‑tax income.

California ranks #1 in LaborCove’s state list for architectural and engineering managers with a Geography Score of 85.20, the highest among the top 10 states. The state’s median annual salary for this occupation is $210,280, which is higher than the national median of $171,270. California also has a reported employment count of 29,630 architectural and engineering managers, which is larger than the employment counts supplied for Massachusetts (7,690), New Mexico (2,270), Texas (19,030), Washington (6,060), New York (8,250), Colorado (4,900), and New Jersey (4,540). Within the evidence provided, this 29,630 figure is identified as the largest employment market. The combination of a Geography Score of 85.20, a median salary of $210,280, and the largest reported employment count helps explain why California sits at the top of the current LaborCove rankings, although the internal weighting of those factors in the score is not disclosed.

Massachusetts holds the #2 rank with a LaborCove Geography Score of 57.60. Its median salary of $201,430 is higher than the national median and lower than California’s $210,280. Employment for architectural and engineering managers in Massachusetts is reported at 7,690, which is smaller than California’s 29,630 and Texas’s 19,030 but larger than the counts reported for New Mexico, Washington, Colorado, and New Jersey. New Mexico illustrates how a state can rank highly despite a smaller reported employment base. It ranks #3 with a Geography Score of 54.51 and a median salary of $215,120. New Mexico’s median salary is higher than both the national median and California’s $210,280 figure. Its employment count of 2,270 architectural and engineering managers is smaller than the employment counts reported for California, Texas, Massachusetts, Washington, New York, Colorado, and New Jersey. Together, Massachusetts and New Mexico show that a higher Geography Score can occur in states with lower employment counts than California and Texas, and in New Mexico’s case, with a median salary that exceeds those of both the national benchmark and the top‑ranked state.

Texas ranks #4 with a LaborCove Geography Score of 53.11, a median salary of $171,370, and reported employment of 19,030 architectural and engineering managers. Texas’s median salary is slightly higher than the national median of $171,270. Its employment count is smaller than California’s 29,630 but larger than the employment counts supplied for Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington, New York, Colorado, and New Jersey. Washington ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 48.78, a median salary of $189,680, and reported employment of 6,060. Washington’s median salary is higher than the national median and higher than Texas’s $171,370. Its employment base is smaller than those reported for California, Texas, Massachusetts, and New York, but larger than the counts supplied for New Mexico, Colorado, and New Jersey. Compared with the national context, both Texas and Washington combine Geography Scores above 48 with salaries at or above the U.S. median. Texas stands out more on employment size, while Washington stands out more on median salary relative to several other states in the top 10.

New York, Colorado, and New Jersey occupy ranks #7, #8, and #9 respectively, each with supplied data for salary, employment, and Geography Score. New York has a Geography Score of 46.05, a median salary of $175,710, and employment of 8,250. Its median salary is higher than the national median of $171,270 and higher than Texas’s $171,370, but lower than the median salaries reported for California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington, Colorado, and New Jersey. Colorado ranks #8 with a Geography Score of 44.74, a median salary of $183,810, and employment of 4,900. Its median salary is higher than the national benchmark and higher than the salaries reported for Texas and New York. New Jersey ranks #9 with a Geography Score of 43.32, a median salary of $180,640, and employment of 4,540. Its median salary is higher than the national median and higher than the salaries in Texas and New York, but lower than those in California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington, and Colorado. Across these three states, salaries remain above the national median, while their employment counts are smaller than those reported for California and Texas and, in New York’s case, larger than those for Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, and New Jersey.

Oregon and Wyoming complete the top‑10 list at ranks #6 and #10. Both states have supplied medians and Geography Scores, but their employment counts are not provided in the current dataset. Oregon’s #6 rank comes with a Geography Score of 47.44 and a median annual salary of $177,190. This salary is higher than both the national median of $171,270 and Texas’s $171,370, but lower than the median salaries reported for California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Washington, Colorado, and New Jersey. Wyoming ranks #10 with a Geography Score of 42.77 and a median salary of $163,560. Wyoming’s median salary is lower than the national median and lower than the median salaries reported for every other state in the top 10. Because Oregon and Wyoming lack reported employment counts in this evidence, comparisons for those states focus on salary levels and Geography Scores rather than employment size.

LaborCove’s state rankings for architectural and engineering managers are based on authoritative labor‑market data and the proprietary LaborCove Geography Score. For each state, we consider the supplied median annual salary, employment count where available, and the resulting Geography Score and rank. OEWS-based observations for this article refer to May 2025. The 2026 report year reflects when LaborCove packages and publishes the data, not when the underlying employment and wage observations were collected. National projected employment growth of 3.8% for architectural and engineering managers is a separate national‑level projection. It applies to the occupation across the country and is not a forecast for any individual state or metro area. The Geography Score summarizes multiple inputs into a single ranking metric, but the exact weighting of salary, employment, and other potential factors is internal to LaborCove and not disclosed here. Rankings should be viewed as one input to decision‑making and interpreted alongside personal career goals, preferred industries, and non‑labor factors that are outside the scope of this dataset.