Best States for Cost Estimators: California Ranks #1, but Massachusetts Offers the Highest Pay

Across the top 10 LaborCove states for cost estimators, the data show that no single state leads on every measure at once. California ranks #1 overall with the highest Geography Score and the largest state employment count, but Massachusetts—ranked #2—has the highest median annual salary among these states. Texas and Florida bring much larger employment counts than several higher-paying but smaller markets like Alaska and Wyoming. Relative to the national median salary of $78,740, several top-ranked states sit above that pay benchmark, while Florida is slightly below it. The projected -4.2% national employment change for cost estimators provides important context for the occupation overall, but the state ranking evidence here focuses strictly on salary, employment counts, and Geography Scores rather than any geographic growth projections.

The national median annual salary for cost estimators is $78,740. Within LaborCove’s top 10 states, several locations have median salaries above this national mark. Massachusetts, ranked #2 overall, has the highest supplied median salary at $100,840. Alaska and Wyoming—ranked #6 and #10—also show relatively high median salaries of $97,020 and $90,790, respectively. California, the #1 state in the Geography Score rankings, has a median salary of $85,460, which is also higher than the national median. On the other side of the comparison, Florida’s median salary of $74,990 sits below the $78,740 national median. Pennsylvania’s median of $78,480 is very close to, but numerically below, the national figure. Texas has a median salary of $76,980, which is also below the national median.

LaborCove’s Geography Score highlights that the highest salary does not automatically lead to the highest rank. California is ranked #1 with a Geography Score of 73.80, even though Massachusetts has the highest median salary among these states. Massachusetts, with a higher median salary of $100,840, has a lower Geography Score of 61.45 and therefore ranks #2. Within the top 5, Washington and Alaska provide another illustration of this pattern. Washington is ranked #5 with a Geography Score of 50.12 and a median salary of $86,070, while Alaska is ranked #6 with a Geography Score of 50.05 and a higher median salary of $97,020. Despite Alaska’s higher pay, Washington’s Geography Score is slightly higher. Florida and Wyoming, ranked #9 and #10, also show that ranking can diverge from salary alone. Florida has a Geography Score of 43.57 and a median salary of $74,990, while Wyoming has a lower Geography Score of 43.31 but a higher median salary of $90,790.

The national employment count for cost estimators is 224,220. Among the top-ranked states, California has the largest supplied employment count, with 26,020 cost estimators, and Texas follows with 20,760. These two states stand out within this top 10 list for having the largest state-level employment counts. New York and Florida also show comparatively higher employment counts in this group, with 11,980 and 13,720 cost estimators, respectively. Pennsylvania has 9,420 cost estimators, and Washington has 7,470. Colorado and Massachusetts, with 6,100 and 4,520 cost estimators, have smaller employment counts than California and Texas but remain within the top 10 ranked states. At the lower end of the supplied employment range among these top states, Alaska has 220 cost estimators and Wyoming has 440. These counts are smaller than the employment figures reported for the other states in the top 10 list, including California’s 26,020 and Texas’s 20,760.

When comparing pay and employment together, the LaborCove data show that different states combine these metrics in distinct ways. California pairs a median salary of $85,460 with 26,020 employed cost estimators, while Texas combines a median salary of $76,980 with 20,760 employed cost estimators. Both states rank in the top 3 and have larger employment counts than the other states in the top 10 list, but their median salaries differ. Massachusetts and Alaska illustrate a different combination: both have high median salaries—$100,840 and $97,020—but substantially smaller employment counts of 4,520 and 220, respectively. Washington and Colorado, with median salaries of $86,070 and $86,940 and employment counts of 7,470 and 6,100, fall between the larger-employment states like California and Texas and the smallest-employment states like Alaska and Wyoming. Florida and Pennsylvania sit close on some measures but not all. Florida’s median salary of $74,990 is lower than Pennsylvania’s $78,480, while Florida’s employment count of 13,720 is higher than Pennsylvania’s 9,420. Their Geography Scores—43.57 for Florida and 45.03 for Pennsylvania—show that the higher employment count in Florida does not automatically correspond to a higher Geography Score.

The national projected employment change for cost estimators is -4.2%. This projection applies to the occupation nationally and is separate from the state-level employment counts reported here. The state rankings in this article do not include any geographic growth projections. Instead, the LaborCove evidence for states focuses on current median salaries, employment counts, and Geography Scores. For example, California’s #1 rank combines a Geography Score of 73.80, a median salary of $85,460, and an employment count of 26,020. Massachusetts, ranked #2, combines the highest reported median salary of $100,840 with a Geography Score of 61.45 and an employment count of 4,520. Readers can use this information as one input when comparing locations, recognizing that the LaborCove rankings capture what is directly measured—salary, employment counts, and Geography Scores—while other factors such as non-wage benefits, industry mix, and personal preferences are not represented in this dataset.

LaborCove builds these rankings from authoritative U.S. labor-market sources combined with its own Geography Score methodology. For cost estimators (occupation code 13-1051), the national figures in this analysis—median annual salary, employment, and projected employment change—are drawn from Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations as of May 2025, paired with a national occupational projection of -4.2% employment change. For states, LaborCove uses observed median annual salary and employment counts for cost estimators, along with a LaborCove Geography Score that summarizes how each geography performs within the LaborCove framework. In this article, only the top 10 ranked states are shown, ranging from Rank #1 to Rank #10. The Geography Score is a composite measure produced by LaborCove. The underlying evidence available for this article identifies each state’s ranking, its Geography Score value, its employment count, and its median salary. The precise contribution of each metric to the final Geography Score is not disclosed in this dataset, so this article limits its interpretation to visible differences in scores, salaries, and employment counts. Because national projected employment growth is supplied only at the national level, this article does not apply or infer any projected growth rates for individual states. Instead, the national -4.2% projection is used solely as overall occupational context. Readers should weigh these rankings alongside personal factors such as preferred industries, non-wage benefits, and individual circumstances, which are outside the scope of the LaborCove data used here.