Expert view: Traditional vs real-time salary survey data – what’s the difference
Traditional salary surveys remain widely used, while new real-time data approaches are gaining traction. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and together they can give employers a more complete view of the market.
Traditional salary surveys: reliable but slower
Traditional salary surveys allow organisations to contribute data to a ‘club’ of predefined comparators, using agreed job role rankings to clarify hierarchies and sectors. Data is collated and shared back with contributors in a consistent format.
The timeframe for this process typically ranges from two to nine months. This methodology can work, but it assumes a degree of commonality in roles that is becoming harder to maintain.
Take technology roles, especially at the sharp end of AI development. The market is shifting as fast as the technology itself, making it increasingly difficult to quantify a ‘full stack’ capability when skills evolve so rapidly.
The levelling that pre-formatted hierarchies provide feeds into organisational progression frameworks, so this really does need to keep pace with evolving technical requirements and abilities.
The predominance of remote and hybrid working also adds complexity. For example, how do traditional surveys account for regional pay variances (such as London Weighting) when many employees now work nationally?
I was talking to a major investment fund recently who was bemoaning the fact that all their U.S. employees wanted to receive pay rates for the Bay Area, even though very few of them worked there!
Another consideration can be working patterns. Comparing a 42-hour week to a 32-hour week isn’t a sound approach. Employers need to be certain that the packages they offer are aligned to the live market and that the data is a genuine match for the roles they are onboarding.
Pros of traditional data
- Structured and validated
- Consistent and established
- Useful as a baseline
Cons of traditional data
- Data can be 2–9 months old on release
- Less agile for fast-moving markets
- Can struggle with new or niche roles
Real-time salary data: Faster but less certain
The new live market data approaches, offered by some providers, are designed to close the time lag – but is it at the expense of the veracity of the data?
Some providers ensure that roles are ‘levelled’ before benchmarking against agreed comparators locally, nationally, and internationally. This approach provides ‘live’ market data that can be relied upon to be an accurate job role match and a real-time set of data.
There are some providers in the space, however, who are leaning into the AI revolution and employing friendly robots to totter off and scrape any and all data from job sites, presenting it as matched data. A flawed approach in many ways.
In conducting any benchmarking exercise, being certain that you are comparing job role content with similar roles is critical, as opposed to benchmarking job role titles.
Not only that, but by comparing job role titles, employers are missing out on the varying definitions of proficiency within roles that will inform any progression matrix.
It’s also worth questioning what “live” really means. Data provided in September may reflect packages settled the previous April – putting it on a similar footing to traditional survey data. The key is whether providers adjust for settlement dates and apply relevant market ageing to bring pay into line with the current period. Not all do this, so transparency is vital.
That said, the real-time approach can have a real advantage when it comes to working from home data. Being able to notate which roles are most likely working from a ‘national’ base, rather than an inner-city base – with its higher cost centre – is powerful.
Pros of real-time data
- More current, with less lag
- Covers emerging and evolving roles quickly
- Flexible and often more accessible
- Can capture remote and hybrid trends
Cons of real-time data
- Accuracy varies depending on provider
- Risk of poor role matching
- “Live” data may still be months old
- Some sources rely too heavily on scraping
The best approach
The choice between traditional and real-time salary data depends on your organisation’s needs.
- If you operate in a stable, low-churn environment with a traditional pay framework, the traditional approach may be best for you.
- If you are at the sharp end of a dynamic labour market, having concise, accurate, levelled “real-time” data can be a game changer.
Organisations can benefit from both. Traditional surveys provide a stable foundation; real-time insights spot trends and market shifts earlier. Together, they can create a balanced picture that supports both long-term planning and short-term responsiveness.
Conclusion
Traditional salary surveys have long been the backbone of compensation benchmarking, offering structure and credibility. However, their slower cycles often lag the reality of today’s fast-moving labour markets.
While they may be a useful reference, the future of effective reward strategy increasingly rests on accurate, real-time market intelligence. Organisations that embrace this approach will be better positioned to keep pace with the demands of a workforce and economy in constant motion.
This article was prompted by a question on rebaLINK, REBA's confidential, vendor-free forum. Got a reward and employee benefits question? Why not ask the REBA community.
Supplied by REBA Associate Member, Turning Point
Our data and insight helps organisations build the best reward strategy for their business and people.
