Best States for Personal Financial Advisors: New York and California Stand Out for Pay and Scale

Across these top-ranked states, LaborCove’s data shows that strong markets for personal financial advisors can take very different forms. California and New York illustrate one pattern, where a high LaborCove Geography Score combines with large employment bases or very high salaries. Other states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware show that a state can rank in the top 10 with comparatively smaller reported employment counts or mid-range scores when salaries are also elevated. Compared with national context, most of the top 10 states have median pay at or above the national median, but their rankings also incorporate Geography Scores and, where available, employment levels. Advisors weighing a move can use these contrasts to decide whether higher pay, a larger employment base, or a higher overall LaborCove ranking matters most for their own planning.

LaborCove’s national benchmark for personal financial advisors shows a median annual salary of $105,070. National employment stands at 266,800, indicating the size of the occupation across the country rather than in any one state. The occupation also has a projected national employment growth rate of 9.6%. This projection applies to personal financial advisors at the national level only and does not specify how growth might differ among individual states or metropolitan areas. These national figures provide a baseline to compare the top-ranked states on salary and employment where state data is available.

Among the 50 states evaluated, New York holds the #1 position for personal financial advisors with a LaborCove Geography Score of 76.39. California follows at #2 with a Geography Score of 75.23, placing both states at the top of the ranking but with distinct profiles on salary and employment. Within the top 10, New Jersey ranks #3 with a Geography Score of 60.95, ahead of Massachusetts at #4 with 57.62 and Connecticut at #5 with 52.77. Delaware (#6) has a Geography Score of 50.03, while Florida (#7) and Texas (#8) are close together at 48.57 and 48.49, respectively. Illinois (#9) and Pennsylvania (#10) round out the top 10 with Geography Scores of 44.90 and 44.62. These results show that every state in the top 10 has a Geography Score above 44, but there is a noticeable gap between the leading pair (New York and California) and the rest of the top 10.

Median pay for personal financial advisors in most of the top-ranked states exceeds the national median of $105,070. New York reports the highest median salary among the top 10 at $166,400, which is above both California’s $130,330 and New Jersey’s $158,570. Several other states in the top 10 combine elevated pay with lower Geography Scores than New York and California. Massachusetts has a median salary of $125,670, Connecticut reports $129,720, and Delaware comes in at $125,050. All three have median salaries higher than the national figure while ranking between #4 and #6 in LaborCove’s results. Florida and Texas, ranked #7 and #8, have median salaries of $100,970 and $99,160, respectively, which are below the national median. Illinois and Pennsylvania both post median salaries above the national benchmark, at $120,130 and $105,200.

Employment counts are available for several of the top 10 states and highlight different types of markets. California has the largest supplied employment base among these states, with 32,200 personal financial advisor positions, and is identified as the largest employment market in the available geographic data. New York, the top-ranked state by Geography Score, has reported employment of 21,550, which is slightly higher than Florida’s 21,490. Texas shows an employment count of 18,200, while Pennsylvania and Illinois report 12,200 and 9,760, respectively. New Jersey is the remaining state in the top 10 with a supplied employment number, at 9,300. Together, these figures show that some states in the top 10, such as California and New York, pair high rankings with relatively large reported employment counts, while others like New Jersey and Illinois appear in the top 10 with smaller reported employment bases.

LaborCove’s rankings also illustrate that the state with the highest median salary is not always the top overall Geography Score. New York leads the rankings at #1 and also has the highest median salary among the top 10 at $166,400, but New Jersey offers a median salary of $158,570 while ranking #3 with a lower Geography Score of 60.95. Similarly, Connecticut reports a higher median salary of $129,720 than Massachusetts at $125,670 and Delaware at $125,050, yet Connecticut ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 52.77 compared with Massachusetts at #4 with 57.62 and Delaware at #6 with 50.03. This shows that, within LaborCove’s methodology, the Geography Score reflects more than salary alone. At the other end of the top 10, Florida and Texas illustrate that states can appear in the rankings even when their median salaries are below the national median. Florida at #7 has a median salary of $100,970 and Texas at #8 has $99,160, while their Geography Scores remain close together at 48.57 and 48.49.

LaborCove ranks locations for each occupation using authoritative labor‑market data combined with its proprietary LaborCove Geography Score. For this article, we focus on personal financial advisors (occupation code 13-2052) and compare state rankings, median annual salaries, employment counts where supplied, and Geography Scores. National figures and state data in this article are based on Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations with a reference period of May 2025. The projected national employment growth rate of 9.6% for personal financial advisors is a separate nationwide occupational projection and is not an OEWS observation. Geography Scores summarize how each state performs in LaborCove’s methodology, but the internal weight on any one metric (such as salary versus employment) is not disclosed. The scores should be interpreted as comparative indicators rather than precise forecasts of individual outcomes. Advisors should consider these rankings alongside their own priorities, since factors such as preferred region, role type, or non‑labor‑market considerations are outside the scope of this dataset.