Best States for Compensation and Benefits Managers: California Tops Rankings as Washington and Connecticut Lead on Pay

Across the states LaborCove ranks highest for compensation and benefits managers, the data highlight that higher pay, larger employment counts, and stronger Geography Scores do not always align in a simple way. Some states rank highly with very strong salaries but modest employment counts, while others combine large employment with salaries closer to the national median. Nationally, compensation and benefits managers show a median annual salary of 149,230 and a projected employment growth rate of 0.2%. Within that context, several top‑ranked states post higher median salaries than the national figure, while at least one top‑10 state sits below it. The employment counts among these states range from a few hundred roles to nearly three thousand, underscoring the diversity of market scale even within LaborCove’s top tier. Understanding these contrasts can help you decide whether to prioritize being in a larger employment market like California or New York, or to focus on states where the typical pay level is higher than the national median, such as Washington, Massachusetts, or Connecticut.

At the national level, compensation and benefits managers have a median annual salary of 149,230. That national benchmark is a useful reference point when comparing state‑level pay. National employment for this occupation stands at 22,940. In addition, the occupation has a supplied national projected employment growth rate of 0.2%. This projection describes expected change for the occupation across the United States as a whole and is not a forecast for any specific state. Against this backdrop, LaborCove identifies 44 geographies for this occupation and reports that the largest single employment market among those geographies has 2,970 compensation and benefits managers. Within the top 10 states alone, California reaches that 2,970 figure, while other states in the group range down to a few hundred roles.

LaborCove’s rankings place California at Rank #1 with a Geography Score of 77.14. New York follows at Rank #2 with a score of 71.66, while Washington holds Rank #3 at 59.20. These scores indicate that each of these states performs strongly within LaborCove’s scoring system, with California’s score numerically higher than New York’s and Washington’s. Massachusetts, at Rank #4 with a Geography Score of 58.16, sits just above Texas, which is Rank #5 with a score of 57.12. New Jersey (Rank #6, 54.73) and Connecticut (Rank #7, 54.42) are closely grouped by score, with New Jersey slightly higher than Connecticut. Rounding out the top 10, Virginia holds Rank #8 with a Geography Score of 53.87, Georgia is Rank #9 at 50.88, and Colorado is Rank #10 with 46.62. In this band, Virginia’s score is higher than Georgia’s and Colorado’s, and Georgia’s is higher than Colorado’s. Together, these results show that while all 10 states are in LaborCove’s top tier, their Geography Scores still vary meaningfully.

Several top‑ranked states show median salaries above the national median of 149,230 for compensation and benefits managers. New York’s median salary is 175,620, which is higher than the national figure. Washington’s median salary of 199,190 is also higher than the national median, as is Massachusetts at 184,070. Connecticut’s median salary of 197,970 is above the national benchmark, and New Jersey comes in at 168,370, which is likewise above 149,230. Virginia’s median of 153,660, Georgia’s 163,060, Colorado’s 165,770, and California’s 166,730 are each above the national median as well. Within the top 10, Texas stands out for having a median salary that is below the national median. Its median of 136,930 is less than the national figure of 149,230. This contrast illustrates that a state can still appear in LaborCove’s top‑ranked geographies even when its typical pay level trails the national median for the occupation.

Among the top 10 states, California has an employment count of 2,970 compensation and benefits managers. That matches the supplied figure for the largest employment market among the 44 geographies identified, indicating that California has the largest reported employment count in this group. New York’s employment stands at 2,260, which is lower than California’s but still well into the thousands. Texas is close behind New York with 2,230, also lower than California’s 2,970. These three states form the upper end of the employment range within the top 10. Georgia reports 1,010 compensation and benefits managers, while New Jersey lists 950 and Massachusetts 670. Washington has 460, Connecticut 480, and Colorado 280. Virginia’s employment figure is not supplied, so it cannot be compared on this metric. This spread shows that, even among top‑ranked states, the scale of the employment market varies from a few hundred roles to nearly three thousand.

LaborCove’s data show that the highest Geography Score does not necessarily correspond to the highest median salary among the top 10 states. California, which ranks #1 with a Geography Score of 77.14, has a median salary of 166,730. Washington, ranked #3 with a lower Geography Score of 59.20, has a higher median salary of 199,190 than California. Similarly, Connecticut, ranked #7 with a Geography Score of 54.42, posts a median salary of 197,970, which is higher than California’s median salary despite its lower rank in LaborCove’s results. New York also illustrates this pattern: at Rank #2 with a Geography Score of 71.66, it has a median salary of 175,620, which is higher than California’s 166,730. These comparisons underscore that LaborCove’s Geography Score and ranking capture more than pay alone. A state can achieve a top ranking with a median salary that is lower than another state’s, and a state with a very high median salary may still rank lower overall in the top 10. Users weighing potential moves can therefore look separately at median salary, employment count, and Geography Score when comparing these states.

LaborCove’s rankings for compensation and benefits managers draw on authoritative U.S. labor‑market data. The national and state employment and median annual salary figures reflect Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations for May 2025. The national projected employment growth rate is a separate occupational projection for this role across the United States as a whole, not a forecast for any individual state. LaborCove combines these inputs into a LaborCove Geography Score, which is then used to rank states. The specific weighting of salary, employment, and other possible inputs in that score is internal to LaborCove and is not broken out in this article. Geography Scores and rankings summarize how each state compares in the data; they do not predict an individual person’s chances of getting hired. Because individual preferences differ, these rankings should be considered alongside your own priorities, such as whether you place more weight on higher median salary, a larger employment count, or a particular region. LaborCove’s role is to provide a consistent, data‑driven comparison across locations, not to recommend a single “right” state for every compensation and benefits manager.