11 Radford alternatives for compensation management in 2024

Stale benchmarking data that goes out-of-date before you even receive it.

Painstaking and time-consuming manual processes to make that data relevant to your company’s needs.

Eyebrow-raising costs per dataset (especially if you need multiple locations) – and further costs on additional tools to manage other compensation processes.

There are just a few of the reasons that might be behind the search for an alternative to Radford for benchmarking and compensation management.

To help, we’ve scoured the market to find the best Radford alternatives in 2024.

Overview: the best Radford alternatives for compensation management

In this article we compare 11 compensation management providers to Radford, including the pros and cons, standout features, pricing, and user reviews*.

Here’s a quick snapshot comparing all of the providers before we get started:

The pros and cons of Radford for compensation management

First things first, to ensure fair comparison with all of the Radford alternatives we’ll explore in the rest of the article, here's a quick refresher on Radford’s services and the pros and cons of using them for compensation management.

Radford is the HR arm of global consultancy firm Aon. Its purpose is to support companies with compensation and rewards management services. 

Radford is a consultancy firm first, and a compensation management software provider second, with three main compensation management services:

1. Compensation consulting 
2. Benchmarking data
3. Market practice studies

Compensation consultancy by Radford

Radford is predominantly a consultancy provider, with a team of experts available to support companies with the design and implementation of strategic projects relating to HR and compensation. 

There are 6 key areas that Radford supports with:

1. Executive compensation
2. Employee rewards
3. Sales compensation 
4. Private company compensation (i.e. support for companies on the road to IPO)
5. Corporate governance
6. Equity compensation.

Radford’s benchmarking data

Radford sells salary survey datasets. These are a compilation of compensation data (base salary, equity, variable pay, and benefits) gathered by Radford through a large-scale survey, typically conducted once per year.

Historically the data has been delivered in the form of spreadsheet like this one:

Today there is also the option to view and analyse the data in The Radford Platform – a software solution offered by Radford for users to access benchmarking data and receive job architecture and levelling results.

Market studies

Alongside benchmarking data, Radford’s compensation database also includes ‘market practice studies’. 

Like salary surveys, these market studies are the findings from surveys conducted by Radford. The surveys interrogate different elements of the rewards practices of global companies to provide data which can inform how People Teams approach different areas. 

Radford currently has 6 live market practice studies on the following areas of reward: 

1. Salary increase and employee turnover 
2. Short- and long-term incentives
3. Intern, new graduate, and pay administration
4. Employee experience and paid time off
5. Sales incentives and car policy
6. Severance and change-in-control

Radford pros

Radford has a G2 rating of 4 out of 5. 

The main benefits of using Radford for compensation management are:

• Brand trust and credibility. Radford has been supporting corporate HR teams for a long time with compensation management. They’re a well-known and respected brand name that can still hold a lot of weight and credibility. This can make it easier to gain approval from senior stakeholders on Radford as a supplier compared to other alternative providers.
• Large dataset. Radford collects compensation data from some of the largest corporations across the globe, so their benchmarking datasets span a vast range of countries, job roles, and job levels – though this can also be a limitation if you have a more streamlined organisation structure, meaning much of the data is irrelevant and making the dataset complex to use.
• Data and consultancy. As a traditional consultancy provider, Radford is able to support HR and People teams with a personalised approach to strategic projects, as well as providing compensation data and management products, which can be a benefit for some companies who are looking to implement or improve processes.

Radford cons

The main downsides of using Radford for compensation management are:

• Expensive. The weight and reputation of the Radford brand name, and the fact that they work with the world’s largest companies, means they can charge extremely high rates for compensation data and projects. There are typically lots of cost add-ons too – an extra cost for a custom peer group to narrow down comparison in their huge dataset, for instance, or the need to pay for a new benchmarking dataset for every location, even if you only have a small number of employees based there.
• Limited compensation management features. Radford provides benchmarking data and consultancy services. As a compensation management solution this isn’t comprehensive enough, missing several vital features: salary bands, pay equity analysis, compensation review planning (e.g. budgeting scenarios). Radford may cover some of these areas through one-off consultancy projects, but this doesn’t meet ongoing compensation management needs for most teams.
• Static compensation data that is always behind the market. Radford’s approach to benchmarking data is to conduct a large-scale annual survey to gather compensation data, which is then compiled and released for sale. The resulting dataset reflects the single point in time when survey responses were submitted and so does not give an up-to-date view of the market – the data is already outdated as soon as it is received, and you need to wait another year (and pay again) for the next instalment.
• Complex job role and level taxonomies. Radford compiles data from the largest companies in the world, with data from a huge range of industries, locations, and company sizes. The resulting datasets, therefore, contain a huge range of job roles and job levels – Radford’s technology compensation survey, for instance, contains 899 unique job roles. It takes a lot of manual work and time to interpret this information and align the data with the job roles and job levels that are actually relevant to your company. 
• Manual and time intensive compensation data submissions. Radford collects compensation data through manual survey submissions which take a lot of time for People Teams to complete. The manual nature of submissions means the data is very prone to errors. Plus, the surveys are complex, and it’s a give-to-get model so if you purchase a dataset you’re required to submit your company’s compensation data too. 
• Unintuitive platform. Radford specialises in consultancy, not software. Whilst it is now possible to receive their compensation survey datasets in a platform instead of a spreadsheet, users report that it is unintuitive and difficult to use.

1. Ravio vs Radford 

Ravio is a compensation management platform powered by reliable and real-time benchmarking data.

Ravio products and features

There are three main elements to Ravio’s compensation management platform: benchmarking, salary bands, and pay equity.

Firstly, Ravio provides compensation benchmarking data. Ravio’s benchmarking features include:

• Total rewards benchmarks: base salary, equity, variable pay, employee benefits
• Real-time data: gathered and updated through HRIS integrations
• Global data coverage
• Filters: ensure relevant comparisons with filters for industry, company size, company stage, and location
• Job levelling included: all Ravio users have their level framework or individual employees mapped to the Ravio level framework to ensure accurate analysis
• Market trends: real-time market insights e.g. salary increases, attrition rates
• Flexible user permissions: ability to share as much or as little with colleagues e.g. hiring managers
• Data security: employee data is always aggregated, anonymised, and encrypted, and Ravio is fully GDPR and SOC 2 compliant.

Secondly, Ravio’s salary bands tool includes the following key features:

• Auto-create bands: build a salary band structure from scratch
• Edit existing bands: import an existing salary band structure to visualise bands and make changes
• Market view: compare employees to the market benchmark for their salary band – identify salary band outliers and employees whose compensation is falling behind market
• Budgeting scenarios: model different cost scenarios for your next compensation review or for out-of-cycle increases to address salary band issues 
• Share salary bands: share salary bands with hiring managers, talent acquisition, and employees – and control how much data each user is provided.

Finally, Ravio enables pay equity analysis, with the following key features:

• Automate pay equity analysis: instantly visualise and identify pay equity issues, including the gender pay gap and representation of women
• Market view: compare pay equity metrics to market benchmarks
• Cost analysis: easily identify the costs to fix pay equity issues
• Pay equity reports: communicate pay equity progress with colleagues and employees with custom reports.

Ravio pros compared to Radford 

• Comprehensive compensation management solution – includes salary bands and pay equity. Whereas Radford provides only static benchmarking data and compensation consultancy services, Ravio is an end-to-end compensation management platform which enables key compensation processes to take place in one platform – benchmarking, salary bands, cost analysis, pay equity analysis. Ravio also has a compensation review product, coming in 2025. 
• Intuitive platform. Ravio users report that the platform is ‘easy-to-use’, ‘user friendly’, ‘intuitive’, and ‘easy to interpret’ – compared to Radford’s platform, which is seen as unintuitive and over-complicated.
• Real-time benchmarking data. Whereas Radford’s compensation benchmarking data reflects a single point in time and is refreshed annually, Ravio offers real-time benchmarking data which is always up-to-date and reflective of the quickly-changing talent market – because the data flows directly from company HRIS systems. 
• Accurate benchmarking data. The manual nature of Radford’s compensation surveys leaves the benchmarking data prone to errors. Ravio’s data is sourced directly from company HR systems, eliminating human error. All Ravio data also passes verification by our in-house benchmarking experts and data science team.
• Relevant data. Ravio’s platform includes the ability to filter data for different locations, industries, company sizes, and company stages – ensuring the benchmarks and job catalogue are always highly relevant to users. Radford’s focus on large, legacy businesses means a lot of irrelevant data and thousands of roles and levels to sift through, without the ability to filter for relevance.
• Job level mapping done for you. Every Ravio customer has their level framework or individual employees mapped against the best practice Ravio level framework to ensure like-for-like comparisons between company roles and market benchmarks. Radford does not do this, leaving customers to conduct lengthy and manual job level matching exercises.
• Cost effective. Ravio is a cheaper option than Radford and offers a lot more for the price. With Radford you pay a one-off fee for either compensation survey data (we’ve had companies report costs up to $100,000 for access to survey datasets) or a consultancy project. With Ravio you pay an annual fee to access the features that are useful to your company – as a rough estimate, pricing for a company with a headcount of 500 will typically be around $20,000, depending on which features are chosen.

Ravio cons compared to Radford 

• Consultancy services. Ravio is a modern compensation management software provider and does not include the option of support on specific projects through consultancy, which Radford does offer. However, Ravio does have an expert team who are on-hand to support – with a dedicated customer success manager for every account, as well as educational guidance and regular workshops to support upskilling. Ravio also has a partner network of expert compensation consultants, with access to significant rate discounts for Ravio customers.  

Ravio reviews

Ravio has a G2 rating of 4.7 out of 5.

Ravio is trusted by fast-growing tech companies like Adyen, Wise, Octopus Energy, Bolt, Tiqets, and more.

2. Payscale vs Radford 

Payscale is predominantly a compensation benchmarking data provider, as well as offering a suite of compensation management software solutions.

Payscale products and features

Payscale has three software products: MarketPay, Payfactors, and Compensation Planning.

MarketPay is a platform which aggregates third-party compensation surveys from providers like Radford or Mercer and provides expert analysis on the data. The software can also be used for survey participation management, with templates to make submitting data to a salary survey (like Radford’s) much easier. 

Payfactors is a compensation management platform which includes benchmarking data, survey participation management, salary band creation, and custom reports e.g. geographic differentials. 

There are several different benchmarking datasets available in Payfactors (also available to purchase as standalone datasets):

• Third-party compensation surveys from traditional providers like Radford
• Employer reported data gathered via HRIS integrations or through quarterly Payscale compensation surveys
• Employee reported data gathered through an always-on Payscale survey of employees currently in the workforce
• The Payfactors Market Data database – this is the employer reported data but combined with professional market analysis by Payscale experts.

Compensation Planning is a tool for collaborating with line managers on compensation reviews, including sharing salary information, managing approvals on salary increases, and communicating salary adjustments to employees. Compensation Planning also includes equal pay features to support fair pay during compensation review conversations.

Payscale also provides bespoke consultancy projects for compensation initiatives such as job matching or benchmarking implementation.

Payscale pros 

• Compensation management software, plus consultancy. Payscale offers a broad range of options: standalone benchmarking datasets, consultancy services, compensation management software. If consultancy support is an option your company is considering, then this could be a great way to combine consultancy projects with modern software for compensation management. 
• Streamlined surveys. For companies that currently use several compensation survey providers to ensure coverage and comparison, Payscale may offer a more streamlined and less time-consuming option compared to working with providers like Radford on an individual basis – offering the ability to view data from all providers in one place and generate templated salary survey submissions.
• Intuitive platform. Payscale users report that the platforms are ‘smooth and easy to use’ and ‘straightforward’  – compared to Radford’s platform, which is seen as unintuitive and over-complicated.

Payscale cons 

• Confusing product options. Whilst the multitude of compensation offerings may be beneficial for some, for others it can be confusing to understand the Payscale product suite. Payfactors and MarketPay, for instance, are both compensation benchmarking tools which have very similar functionality, and it can be difficult to understand which option is relevant to your needs.
• Reliance on third-party compensation survey data. Payscale has a focus on aggregating compensation survey data from all of the key traditional providers e.g. Radford, Mercer, Willis Towers Watson. As we saw with Radford, this survey approach is flawed: a static, out-of-date dataset which is prone to errors due to the manual approach. 
• Reliance on employee submitted data. Payscale also includes the option to use employee submitted data. User submitted data is a highly unreliable source. It typically shows a broad range of data for each role due to varying and inaccurate submissions.

Payscale reviews

Payscale has a G2 rating of 4.3 out of 5.

3. Assemble vs Radford

Assemble is a compensation planning and management tool, primarily serving healthcare and biotech companies based in the US.

Assemble products and features

The Assemble platform contains five modules:

1. Compensation bands: build a salary band structure aligned with your job architecture and location-based pay strategy, analyse how existing employees sit within their band, compare to market benchmarking data (via Carta), forecast the cost of making adjustments.
2. Compensation analytics: analyse the ‘compensation health’ of an organisation with key stats such as compa ratio, surface pay equity risks, export data visualisations to share with the wider team e.g. managers.
3. Compensation review planning: plan and implement employee compensation adjustments, including manager guidelines and approval workflows
4. Offer creation: customisable new hire offer letters for an enhanced candidate experience.
5. Employee portal: improve pay transparency by giving employees visibility into the creation of their total rewards package.

Assemble pros 

• Comprehensive solution. Assemble is a comprehensive compensation platform, covering all key compensation processes (salary bands, pay equity analysis, compensation review planning, employee communication) – unlike Radford who provide only static benchmarking data and compensation consultancy services.
• Intuitive platform. Assemble users report that the platform is ‘user friendly’ and ‘intuitive’ – compared to Radford’s platform, which is seen as unintuitive and over-complicated, and still necessitates a reliance on manual spreadsheets to manage compensation.

Assemble cons 

• Reliance on third-party benchmarking data by Carta. Assemble provides compensation benchmarking data through an integration with Carta. Whilst Carta has a substantial benchmarking database for equity compensation, they are a relatively new provider for salary benchmarking, with only 40,000 total datapoints (compared to e.g. Ravio’s 300,000+). Furthermore, Carta’s primary product focuses on cap table management and so they only work with privately held startups, so their benchmarking data is irrelevant for public companies. 
• USA and biotech focus. Assemble is primarily focused on supporting US-based  biotech companies. They are currently building their own benchmarking dataset called ‘Compgrid’, but this will only provide benchmarks relevant to Biotech companies.
• Lack of pricing information. Assemble does not disclose any pricing information on their website, making it difficult to compare costs with Radford.

Assemble reviews

Assemble has a G2 rating of 4.9 out of 5.

4. Pave vs Radford 

Pave is an end-to-end compensation management platform, primarily serving the US market.

Pave products and features

The Pave platform contains three products:

• Market data: real-time (HRIS integrated) total rewards benchmarking data, offer insights to give an early indication of market trends, expert-vetted role and level matching, filters for company stage, location, and more. 
• Compensation workflows: salary bands (create, visualise, analyse, edit, share) and merit cycle implementation (manager approvals, administer compensation adjustments)
• Communication: total compensation statements, offer letter creation for new hires – with integration to your ATS.

Pave pros

• Comprehensive solution. Pave is an end-to-end compensation management platform, covering all key compensation processes (benchmarking, salary bands, pay equity analysis, compensation review planning) – unlike Radford who provide only static benchmarking data and compensation consultancy services.
• Intuitive platform. Pave users report that the platform is ‘sleek’ and ‘easy to navigate’ – compared to Radford’s platform, which is seen as unintuitive and over-complicated.
• Real-time benchmarking data, free from human error. Pave connects directly with HRIS systems to enable real-time benchmarking insight, as well as providing offer insights too – a much more up-to-date and accurate source than an annual salary survey provider like Radford.
• Filters to ensure relevant data. Pave includes the ability to filter data for different locations, industries, company sizes, and company stages – ensuring the market benchmarks used are relevant. Radford’s focus on large, legacy businesses means a lot of irrelevant data and thousands of roles and levels to sift through, without the ability to filter for relevance.

Pave cons 

• Consultancy services. Pave does not include the option of support on specific projects through consultancy – which Radford does offer.
• USA data focus. Pave primarily works with US-based companies, which means their job catalogue and compensation benchmarking data is highly comprehensive for the US talent market, but is less suitable for companies based in (or with a large employee base in) other locations. 
• Lack of pricing information. Pave does not disclose pricing information on their website. They do have multiple different pricing packages based on the features that are needed, so they’re likely to be more cost effective than an expensive consultancy provider like Radford.

Pave reviews

Pave has a G2 rating of 4.7 out of 5.

5. Lattice vs Radford 

Lattice is a comprehensive HR platform covering a myriad of processes: performance management, employee analytics, OKRs and goals, employee engagement, HRIS, payroll – and compensation management.

Lattice products and features

In terms of compensation management, Lattice offers the following features:

• Third-party benchmarking data from Mercer
• Salary band tool: build, edit, and share salary bands
• Merit cycle management: budget tracking, employee distribution, collaboration tools, compensation adjustment statements.

Lattice pros

• Comprehensive solution. Lattice is a comprehensive HR platform covering many processes – it may be valuable for some companies to have a single provider for these varied processes e.g. performance and compensation. This compares to Radford who focus solely on compensation benchmarking and consultancy. 
• Simple pricing. Lattice pricing is simple and transparent, starting at $11 (~£8.50) per seat per month and the compensation product is an add-on at $6 (~£4.50) per seat per month – and a minimum spend of $4,000 (~£3,000) per year.

Lattice cons 

• Broad HR provider with limited compensation management features. Whilst some companies may find benefit in the breadth of features offered by Lattice, it does mean that they have less in-depth expertise in compensation management – as made clear by their reliance on third-party benchmarking data from Mercer. 
• Reliance on third-party compensation survey data. Lattice provides compensation benchmarking data through an integration with Mercer. Mercer is a traditional salary survey data provider, similar to Radford, and so has the same issue of relying on out-of-date data which is prone to error.
• Modern software but not always intuitive. Lattice is a modern software provider, which is a benefit compared to Radford. However, Lattice users report that the platform is ‘not necessarily intuitive’ and ‘limited in functionality’.

Lattice reviews

Lattice has a G2 rating of 4.7 out of 5.

7. Compa vs Radford 

Compa is a compensation benchmarking data and offers-based data platform, originally named Compa Index.

Compa products and features

There are three key features of Compa’s platform: 

• Compa offer intelligence: offer data trends pulled from applicant tracking systems (ATS) to give a real-time indication of market trends – including the ability to filter and track specific peer groups. 
• Compa benchmarks: real-time salary benchmarking data which combines employee data from customer HRIS with offer data from customer ATS.  
• Compa stock intelligence: equity compensation benchmarks gathered from customer equity grants.

Compa pros compared to Radford:

• Modern software approach. Compa’s founder is ex-Mercer and is specifically building a product to rival the old school compensation survey approach of consultancies like Radford and Mercer. The platform is designed to be easy to use with fast onboarding – access benchmarking data in minutes, without having to wait for the next annual survey to drop. 
• Real-time data for new hire offers. Compa connects directly with ATS systems to enable real-time insights from offer data – which can be a much more up-to-date and accurate source than an annual salary survey provider like Radford.
• Job levelling accuracy. Compa includes clear and detailed job role and level descriptions and includes an outlier detection system which suggests changes when job levels appear inaccurate – ensuring accurate comparisons with market benchmarks. In comparison, Radford provides no levelling and matching support, leading to inaccurate use of benchmarking data.

Compa cons compared to Radford:

• Focus on offers data. Compa’s database is derived entirely from data on job offers, pulled from ATS integrations. Whilst this may be useful for understanding market trends and benchmarking new hire offers, it does not provide information about salaries for existing employees and so cannot be used for accurate compensation benchmarking. Offers data is also limited to roles with high hiring volume that appear in the ATS regularly, and so Compa cannot be used for more niche roles which are rarely hired for. 
• New provider. Compa is in the very early-stages of development. They have no user reviews on G2 and likely have limited data currently, especially compared to a provider like Radford who have been supporting HR teams for decades. 
• USA data focus. Compa primarily works with US-based companies, which means their job catalogue and compensation benchmarking data is highly comprehensive for the US talent market, but is less suitable for companies based in (or with a large employee base in) other locations. 
• Limited features. Compa is primarily a provider of ATS offer data, with no additional compensation management features such as salary bands or pay equity analysis. Radford also only offers benchmarking data, but does also provide the option for consultancy services.
• Expensive. Compa pricing starts at $20,000 (~£15,000) per year for just Compa Benchmarks (i.e. salary benchmarks) in their earliest iteration (i.e. limited data), and pricing is not given for Compa Pro (all features). This is more expensive than other compensation management software options which provide many additional features.

Compa reviews

As a relatively new provider Compa does not yet have any G2 reviews.

8. Barley vs Radford 

Barley is a compensation management platform which uses third-party compensation benchmarking data from Mercer.

Barley products and features

Barley’s platform covers a comprehensive range of compensation tools:

• Pay bands: create and manage salary bands 
• Pay equity: identify, analyse, and fix pay equity issues
• Global benchmarking data: access third-party compensation benchmarking data provided by Mercer, or import data from another benchmarking provider
• Compensation review: assign budgets, plan compensation adjustments using a merit matrix approach, provide manager guidelines, build approval chains, communicate adjustments to employees
• Compensation analytics: Barley proactively flags compensation issues such as employees that are above or below band, pay disparity risks, etc
• Total rewards: generate total rewards statements for employees 
• Candidate benchmarking: collect and report on pay expectations from job candidates as an additional source of pay trend data.

Barley pros compared to Radford 

• Comprehensive solution. Barley is an end-to-end compensation management platform, covering all key compensation processes (benchmarking, salary bands, pay equity analysis, compensation review planning) – unlike Radford who provide only static benchmarking data and compensation consultancy services.
• Intuitive platform. Barley users report that the platform is ‘intuitive’ and ‘easy to use’ – compared to Radford’s platform, which is seen as unintuitive and over-complicated.

Barley cons compared to Radford 

• Reliance on third-party compensation survey data. Barley provides compensation benchmarking data through an integration with Mercer. Mercer is a traditional salary survey data provider, similar to Radford, and so has the same issue of relying on out-of-date data which is prone to error.
• Lack of pricing information. Barley does not disclose pricing information on their website. They do have multiple different pricing packages based on the features needed (with benchmarking and total rewards both add-ons) which suggests they’re likely to be more cost effective than an expensive consultancy provider like Radford.

Barley reviews

Barley has a G2 rating of 4.5 out of 5.

9. Aeqium vs Radford 

Aeqium is a compensation planning and management platform.

Aeqium products and features

Aeqium’s platform includes the following features:

• Compensation cycle management: manager guidance, compensation adjustment scenarios, custom reports, employee communication 
• Compensation bands: create and manage salary bands, view live offer data and import compensation benchmarks
• Compensation insights: track compensation adjustments, flag salary band issues e.g. band outliers, analyse pay equity
• Interactive offer letters for new hires 
• Employee portal: total rewards statement for employees in an interactive platform format.

Aeqium pros compared to Radford 

• Additional compensation management features. Aeqium provides tools to support a multitude of processes across compensation strategy, compensation reviews, pay equity analysis, and more (but, importantly, not compensation benchmarking). Radford, on the other hand, supports only static compensation benchmarking data and consultancy projects.
• Intuitive platform. Aeqium users report that the platform has ‘great UX’ and is ‘super intuitive’ – compared to Radford’s platform, which is seen as unintuitive and over-complicated.

Aeqium cons compared to Radford 

• No compensation benchmarking data. Whilst Aeqium is otherwise a comprehensive compensation management tool, it is missing the vital feature of compensation benchmarking data. Users can only import data from other benchmarking data providers. Benchmarking data is a key feature of Radford. 
• Lack of pricing information. Aeqium does not disclose pricing information on their website. They do have multiple different pricing packages based on the features needed which suggests they’re likely to be more cost effective than an expensive consultancy provider like Radford.

Aeqium reviews

Aeqium has a G2 rating of 4.7 out of 5.

10. Companalyst by Salary.com vs Radford 

Companalyst is a compensation management platform by Salary.com, which also offers aggregated data from third-party compensation survey providers. Companalyst primarily serves the US market.

Companalyst products and features

Companalyst has several features, including:

• Market data: benchmarking data from third-party compensation survey providers, with AI insights to fill any gaps in the data – also includes the ability to participate in salary surveys through the platform. 
• Salary structure wizard: create and edit salary band structures, and analyse pay issues e.g. salary band outliers 
• Merit modelling: model the cost of performance-based compensation increases
• Pay equity analytics
• Total compensation statement to communicate with employees about compensation
• Labour cost forecasting for planning headcount changes

Companalyst pros compared to Radford 

• Software for salary surveys. Companalyst takes salary survey datasets from providers like Radford and Mercer, and compiles them together. This enables you to view salary survey data from multiple providers in one place – and in a modern software platform 
• Comprehensive solution. Companalyst is an end-to-end compensation management platform, covering all key compensation processes (benchmarking, salary bands, pay equity analysis, compensation review planning, etc) – unlike Radford who provide only static benchmarking data and compensation consultancy services.

Companalyst cons compared to Radford 

• Confusing product offering. Whilst the multitude of compensation offerings may be beneficial for some, for others it can be confusing to understand the Companalyst product, which includes lots of features which seem to have a lot of overlap. User reviews highlight this: an ‘overwhelming amount of information’ and ‘so many tools it can be a bit of a maze’. 
• Reliance on third-party compensation survey data. Companalyst has a focus on aggregating compensation survey data from all of the key traditional providers e.g. Radford, Mercer, Willis Towers Watson. As we saw with Radford, this survey approach is flawed: a static, out-of-date dataset which is prone to errors due to the manual approach. 
• USA data focus. Companalyst primarily works with large US-based companies, which means their job catalogue and compensation benchmarking data is highly comprehensive for the US talent market, but may be less suitable for companies based in (or with a large employee base in) other locations. 
• Lack of pricing information. Companalyst does not disclose pricing information on their website. User reviews cite that it is an expensive product and that is very difficult to cancel the contract once set up.

Companalyst reviews

Companalyst has a G2 rating of 4.4 out of 5.

11. Alternative consultancy providers: Mercer, Willis Towers Watson (WTW), Korn Ferry

Alongside the compensation management software solutions that we’ve explored, there are also alternatives to Radford in the form of other traditional HR consultancy providers.

The main three Radford alternatives in terms of other consultancy providers are:

• Mercer
• Willis Towers Watson
• Korn Ferry

These providers all offer essentially the same services as Radford – compensation consultancy for the design and implementation of strategic projects, and benchmarking data via compensation surveys which can be delivered through spreadsheets or online platforms e.g. Korn Ferry Pay.

They, therefore, also have very similar pros (brand trust, large global dataset, consultancy services) and cons (inaccurate and outdated data, complex taxonomies, expensive, limited features) to Radford.

So, is Radford still the best option to go with?

Companies tend to stick with Radford because it’s what they know and it’s a brand name that their key stakeholders trust. 

Plus, for a long time, there weren’t any alternative sources of data for compensation benchmarking or alternative sources of compensation management support. 

This particularly includes the inaccuracies, complexities, and manual nature of Radford’s compensation survey data, the limited tools available for ongoing compensation management support, and the very high costs of working with Radford.

Today, there are alternative providers like Ravio who are filling a huge gap in the market, offering a comprehensive compensation management platform powered by accurate and up-to-date benchmarking data at a much lower cost point than Radford – so it’s well worth exploring other options.

*All information in this article is based on the most up-to-date information available at the time of publication, sourced from the websites of all companies included.