Pay Equity Software: 15 Tools and 2 Published Prices

Pay equity software analyses what your people are paid, finds gaps between comparable employees that your pay factors do not explain, and produces documentation you can defend. Fifteen tools are compared below, checked against their own websites in September 2026.

The headline from that check: almost nobody in this category tells you what it costs. Two of fifteen publish a figure. Everything else is quote-only, and one of the two publishes prices without ever listing pay equity as a feature of what you buy.

A note before the list. Pay equity analysis sits on top of discrimination law, and the output can end up in a regulator’s hands or a courtroom. Nothing here is legal advice. Run your approach, and the results, past an employment lawyer in each country where you employ people before you act on them.

TL;DR: the fifteen tools

• Syndio — enterprise platform, global reporting, no price or methodology published.
• Trusaic PayParity — enterprise, deepest regulatory coverage; pay ranges and reporting are separate products.
• beqom / PayAnalytics — publishes how pricing works, names its statistics, states a mid-market size floor.
• Affirmity PayStat — US compliance, names its statistical tests, sells state pay data reporting.
• DCI Consulting EEOPay — a consultancy’s tool, with published criteria most mid-market teams fail.
• Figures — the only one built around the EU directive’s actual mechanics.
• Sysarb — pay equity is the whole product. No market salary data at all.
• Ravio — the only clean published price. Benchmarking is the core product.
• HiBob — real equity tracking in the Compensation add-on; serves under 50 to over 1,000.
• Lattice — publishes a full price card, but never lists pay equity as a feature of it.
• Payscale — strong benchmark data; pay equity is absent from its published feature table.
• Salary.com CompAnalyst — a separately branded module that names regression as its method.
• OpenComp — in all three bundles, with a free trial, but the site looks dormant.
• HRSoft — names its method, but the feature is in none of its three packages.
• Compport — “pay equity management” that is really salary band design.

Two more names appear on most lists in this category and should not: Mercer sells advisory and hands the technology to Syndio, and Soteria HR is an outsourced HR firm, not a software vendor. Both are covered at the end.

What pay equity software actually does

Four jobs, and most tools do two or three of them rather than all four. Knowing which you need is most of the buying decision.

• Gap analysis. Compare people doing comparable work and measure the pay difference your legitimate factors — level, location, tenure, performance — do not account for. This is the “adjusted” or “unexplained” gap, and it is the number that matters. The raw or unadjusted gap is a different, easier calculation and many cheaper tools stop there.
• Remediation modelling. Work out which pay rises would close the unexplained gaps, and what they would cost. Without this you get a diagnosis and no treatment.
• Regulatory reporting. Produce the specific filings and employee disclosures a jurisdiction demands. This varies enormously between vendors and is where most of them are weakest.
• Job architecture and pay ranges. Define levels, families and pay ranges so comparable work is identifiable in the first place. Several vendors sell this as the foundation, and they are right that without it a gap analysis has nothing to group on.

If you have no job levels yet, start there rather than with an analysis tool. A job leveling exercise is the prerequisite, and doing it badly makes every gap number downstream meaningless. The same is true of the performance data feeding your pay decisions — if ratings are inconsistent between managers, “performance” is not a legitimate explanatory variable, it is noise. Performance calibration is the fix for that, and it belongs before the equity analysis, not after.

What these tools cost, and why that section is short

Every price below was read on the vendor’s own pricing page in September 2026. Where a vendor publishes nothing, this says so rather than estimating.

Two of the fifteen publish a figure.

• Ravio: “Pricing for a 500-person company starts at £5,000 per year.” Billed annually, and their pricing page states there are no monthly subscriptions and no limited-time access. That is a floor for that headcount, not a per-employee rate.
• Lattice: Foundations at $13 per seat per month, with Compensation as a $6 per seat per month add-on, a $4,000 minimum annual agreement, billed annually, in US dollars only. The catch is in the next section.

Three more publish a commercial term without a number, which is still more than most:

• PayAnalytics: a subscription priced on the number of employees analysed, a one-year minimum term, unlimited users at no extra cost, and getting-started assistance included. No figure.
• Sysarb: an onboarding fee is charged, agreements are annual only, and cancellation needs three months’ notice. Certification costs extra.
• OpenComp: a 14-day free trial, published on the signup page.

The remaining ten publish nothing at all. Syndio, Trusaic, Affirmity, DCI, Figures, HiBob, Payscale, Salary.com, HRSoft and Compport are all quote-only. Compport has no pricing page whatsoever.

One trap worth naming. Figures publishes no price on its pricing page, but the page’s search-snippet metadata says “starting from €4,000” in English and “dès 2 500 €” on the French version of the same page. Two different numbers for the same product, neither visible on the page. If you see a Figures price quoted in a listicle, that is probably where it came from. Treat any price you find for these vendors outside their own site as unverified.

{{banner-7="/banner-page"}}

Pay equity specialists

These companies do pay equity as their main business. Two of the five are explicitly built for large enterprises, which matters if you employ a few hundred people.

Syndio

“The pay equity leader trusted by 350+ global enterprises”, with reporting across more than 100 countries and EU right-to-information requests answered in any official language. Three products: Essentials for analysis and reporting, Decisions for checking offers and promotions as they happen, and Predict, which its own homepage marks as coming soon.

Their FAQ says who it is for: “Global enterprises where compensation is complex, consequential, and under scrutiny.” They claim the analysis is delivered inside attorney-client privilege. No published price, and no statistical method — the words regression and significance do not appear on the product pages.

Trusaic PayParity

The deepest regulatory coverage of any vendor here: the EU directive, the UK Equality Act, Canada’s Pay Equity Act, Ireland’s Gender Pay Gap Information Act, Australia’s WGEA, plus Brazil, South Africa, Israel and Japan. Intersectional analysis across gender, race, age and disability in one pass. Remediation runs through an engine they say is embedded in PayParity.

Read the product boundaries before you budget: Salary Range Finder, which holds the market data and offer guidance, is a separate product, as is the pay transparency reporting product. Marketed to “large multinational employers — Fortune 100 companies”. No published price, no named statistical method.

beqom and PayAnalytics

One product with two front doors. beqom acquired PayAnalytics in 2023 and has folded it into a single “Pay Equity and Pay Transparency” product page; the old separate URLs now redirect there. PayAnalytics still runs a full standalone site carrying the acquisition notice. If a list shows you both as separate options, it is counting one product twice.

This is the most transparent vendor in the set on the things that matter. PayAnalytics states its method plainly — “regression analysis, or log linear regression” — which almost nobody else does. It publishes how pricing works. Its FAQ says roughly 50 employees are needed to use the software fully, the lowest published size statement in the category. It handles equal pay for work of equal value, has a job evaluation feature, and includes remediation recommendations tailored to a budget. beqom’s side names the directive by number and covers US state and UK requirements.

The gap: no market salary data, so you bring your own benchmarks. Note too that beqom’s own regression language is a generic statement about the category rather than a claim about its engine — the specific claim lives on the PayAnalytics site.

Affirmity PayStat

Part of Learning Technologies Group, aimed at “global enterprise and mid-market” companies. The most specific published methodology of anyone here: pay differences measured “using regression, t-tests, rank sum, and pay gap analysis” with tests aligned to EEOC regulations. Calculates the salary adjustments needed to fix what it finds, across salary, hourly, overtime, commission, bonus and merit pay.

Strongly US-oriented — federal contractor, EEOC and OFCCP territory. It is also the only vendor here selling US state pay data reporting as its own product, covering states including California and Illinois. Expect to be steered toward the attached consulting engagement with their PhD statisticians. No published price. No EU directive capability that I could find.

DCI Consulting EEOPay

A consultancy first, with EEOPay as a licensable in-house tool. Reporting includes pattern of disparity reports, wage gap reports and salary adjustment calculations. The method is published in detail: similarly situated employee groups, relevant pay factors across base, bonus, commission and equity, and analyses run against Title VII.

Their own page lists what makes you a good candidate: “Comfort and knowledge around statistical analyses”, analysing pay more than once a year, and “internal expertise in legal, statistics, and compensation”. A 200-person company with one HR lead and no statistician does not meet that bar, and DCI is telling you so. The consulting engagement is the realistic route, and they also offer litigation support. No published price.

EU-first tools built around the directive

EU Directive 2023/970 of 10 May 2023 is what has created most of the current demand. Its reporting obligations are staggered by employer size, and where a category of workers shows an average pay difference of at least 5 percent that the employer cannot justify on objective, gender-neutral criteria and has not fixed within six months, a joint pay assessment is triggered.

Do not plan your compliance from the directive text alone. The directive is implemented through 27 national laws, the transposition timetable has slipped in many member states, and the rules that actually bind you are the national ones. I found vendor sites disagreeing with each other on the transposition date. Get the dates and thresholds for your countries from a lawyer, not from a vendor’s marketing page and not from this article.

Figures

The only vendor that engages with the mechanics rather than the acronym. It names the directive by number, detects raw gaps above 5 percent by worker category, generates the mandatory right-to-information letters, and runs a live tracker of which member states have transposed. Pay equity foundations — job classification, compliance report, unadjusted gap, letters — are in every plan; adjusted gaps, remediation scenarios and corrective review campaigns come with the Pay Equity Expert add-on, also sold standalone.

For “mid-market and enterprise companies”, 500+ European customers, data held in European cloud storage. Its own benchmark dataset is roughly 520,000 to 550,000 data points; the 3.5 million figure on its site is Mercer data via a partnership. No published price and no named statistical method, despite reporting adjusted gaps.

Sysarb

Swedish, operating since 2005, and the only vendor here where pay equity is the entire product rather than a module. Built on job evaluation and job architecture, then pay equity analysis, compliance reporting and optional certification. Also covers CSRD and ESG reporting, which nobody else here does. Unlimited users in every package.

Two things to know. Pay equity analysis sits in the middle package — the cheapest tier gives you the unadjusted gap only. And Sysarb supplies no market salary data at all: no benchmarks, no salary survey, nothing. It measures internal fairness, not market position. On method it goes as far as “statistical methods to compare compensation among similarly situated employee groups” without naming a model.

Ravio

The only vendor here that puts a price on a product whose pay equity module is named: pricing for a 500-person company starts at £5,000 per year, billed annually, with no monthly option and no trial. UK-based, tech-sector focused, 50+ countries, data sourced directly from more than 1,500 companies and mapped to their levelling framework at no charge.

Be clear about what the product is. Benchmarking is the core product, not pay equity. Pay equity is a module sold alongside it, and its directive support is a general statement about staying on top of required metrics rather than the named mechanics Figures offers. No published methodology.

Pay equity inside a broader comp or HR platform

If you already run an HR or compensation system, the cheapest route is often a module you can switch on. The catch is that “pay equity” on a solutions page is not the same as a specified feature you can buy, and in this group the gap between the two is wide.

HiBob

A genuine feature, not a marketing page: real-time pay equity monitoring, pay equity insight during comp reviews, automated alerts on out-of-band proposals, and an AI pay equity analyser that flags gaps by role, level, gender and location. Compensation bands carry built-in equity controls.

It is an add-on to Bob Core, so you buy the HR platform first. Its pricing form segments by 1–49, 50–199, 200–999 and 1,000+ employees — one of the few vendors whose own site says it serves companies your size. Watch the data question: Mercer benchmarking is a separate module from Compensation. No published price, no named method, no regulation named anywhere.

Lattice

The most detailed price card here, attached to the weakest pay equity claim. Foundations is $13 per seat per month, Compensation is a $6 per seat per month add-on that includes global benchmarks powered by Mercer data, comp bands, cycle management and statements, and there is a $4,000 minimum annual agreement billed in US dollars.

But Lattice never lists pay equity as a feature of that add-on. The words do not appear on the pricing page at all, and the Compensation feature list does not include it. The only pay equity claim is a line of FAQ prose saying teams can analyse pay equity across teams and demographics. If pay equity is your reason for buying, do not assume the $6 covers it — ask what specifically it does. No published methodology.

Payscale

A serious benchmarking business with a pay equity solutions page describing controlled and uncontrolled gap monitoring and employee-level remediation modelling. Three tiers — Core, Premier, Elite — none with a published price. The thing to check: pay equity does not appear in Payscale’s own published feature comparison table, so nothing tells you which tier includes it. Market data is sold as named dataset add-ons rather than bundled, and several capabilities including Compass are marked coming Winter 2026. No named statistical method.

Salary.com CompAnalyst Pay Equity Suite

A separately branded module bringing job grouping, regression analysis, remediation modelling and ongoing monitoring into one place, with analysis across protected classes. It names regression explicitly, which puts it ahead of most. Weak on regulation though — only generic references to equal pay laws, no named regime. Market data is a separate product family and whether any is bundled is not stated. No published price; there is no Salary.com pricing page.

OpenComp

Pay equity appears in all three bundles, identifying disparities within roles and by gender or ethnicity, with real-time tracking of how merit and bonus cycles move the numbers. Its own crowd-sourced compensation data is included, and it publishes a 14-day free trial — the only one here. Two caveats: it is US-framed and names no regulation at all, and the site looks dormant, with a 2025 footer, a newest news item from 2023 and “latest” content from early 2024. The app and trial signup both work, so it is operating, but ask about the roadmap.

HRSoft

Three packages — Grow, Scale, Elevate — differentiated by cycles per year, hierarchy views, currencies and languages, all quote-only. Its pay equity page names a real method, “a regression analysis function” to determine the impact of compensable factors on pay gaps. But that feature appears in none of the three packages, it is absent from the products menu, and “pay equity” also appears as a partner category with no partner named — so whether it is HRSoft’s own module, a partner capability or an unpriced extra cannot be determined from the site. No market data of its own. US regulatory framing.

Compport

Listed because it markets “pay equity management”, but read the page before shortlisting it. The content is entirely salary band design by country, function, level and grade; the only gap content is “what is the pay equity gap?” as one example metric on a dashboard. No gap analysis, no remediation workflow, no compliance report is described. It publishes blog guides to the EU, UK and US rules while shipping no named compliance capability — content marketing running ahead of the product. Enterprise-positioned, no pricing page at all.

Two names on every list that do not belong on yours

Mercer does not sell pay equity software. Its own pay equity page says Syndio “provides the scalable technology platform needed to operationalize pay equity at enterprise scale” while Mercer brings the advisory. So buying Mercer for pay equity technology means buying Syndio with consultants attached. Mercer sells the benchmark data that sits inside several other products here, and its pay equity offer is explicitly enterprise-scale — it routes smaller buyers to a different, lighter product. Its pages also carry a rebranding notice, so the name may change.

Soteria HR is an outsourced HR firm, not a software vendor. Its own service catalogue — handbooks, FLSA compliance, leave management, payroll support, benefits administration — contains no pay equity offering. It appears on vendor lists because it publishes one of the most-read listicles in this category and ranks itself first in it. Its own words: “Soteria HR is not a standalone pay equity analysis software platform” and “a managed services provider, not a self-serve software platform”. That may be exactly what a 50-person company wants, but it is not a tool.

The wider lesson: third-party lists in this category are unreliable. One current 2026 listicle names a Syndio product that Syndio no longer sells, and counts PayAnalytics and beqom as two separate vendors. If a list has the product name wrong, do not trust its pricing.

Almost nobody publishes how the analysis works

This is the finding that surprised me most. The number these tools produce — the unexplained pay gap — is entirely a product of a statistical model, and the choice of model changes the answer. Of fifteen vendors, six name a method at all.

• PayAnalytics: “regression analysis, or log linear regression”, with configurable outlier detection and intersectional analysis on up to two demographic variables.
• Affirmity: “regression, t-tests, rank sum, and pay gap analysis”, aligned to EEOC regulations.
• DCI: similarly situated employee groups, named pay factors, analyses run against Title VII.
• HRSoft: “a regression analysis function”.
• Salary.com: “regression analyses” to pinpoint gaps across protected classes.
• Sysarb: the category but not a model — statistical methods comparing similarly situated groups, adjusting for role, experience and education.

The other nine name nothing, offering “statistically sound models”, “rigorous statistical methodology” or “AI-powered equity audits” instead — and the two largest specialists in the category are both in that group. A second inversion: attorney-client privilege is claimed by the two big software vendors and by neither of the consultancies that actually employ statisticians and offer litigation support. Whether any privilege claim holds is a question for your counsel, not a comparison article.

Make this a demo question. Ask for the model specification, which variables count as legitimate explanatory factors, how similarly situated groups are built, and what significance threshold applies. A vendor that cannot answer those in writing is selling you a number you cannot defend.

Pay transparency software and pay equity software are mostly the same tools

Pay transparency software is the term people search when the driver is disclosure rather than analysis: publishing ranges in job ads, answering employee questions about how pay is set, filing gap reports. In practice the same vendors sell both, and several package them as one product — beqom’s is literally called Pay Equity and Pay Transparency, and HiBob serves both from one solutions page.

The distinction that matters is direction. Equity analysis is inward: find and fix unexplained gaps. Transparency is outward: publish ranges, answer right-to-information requests, file reports. Most buyers need both, but the transparency half depends heavily on which jurisdictions you employ in, and that is where vendor coverage varies most.

For publishing ranges rather than analysing gaps, the foundation is pay bands and job levels, not an analysis engine. That is a compensation management software question, and several tools here — Sysarb, Figures, Compport — are really band-building products with equity reporting attached. If what you actually want is a view of how pay, tenure and performance distribute across the company, that is closer to HR analytics software than to a compliance tool.

What a company of 30 to 1,000 people can realistically buy

Most of this category is not built for you, and several vendors say so in their own words. Syndio is for “global enterprises”, Trusaic for “Fortune 100 companies”, Compport for “the planet’s largest companies”, HRSoft for “your enterprise”, and Mercer’s pay equity offer is enterprise-scale with smaller buyers routed elsewhere. DCI’s published criteria require in-house legal, statistical and compensation expertise.

That leaves a short list, in rough order of how directly each vendor’s own site says it serves companies your size:

1. PayAnalytics. Publishes a roughly 50-employee floor, names its method, and tells you how pricing works. Weakest on market data — you bring your own benchmarks.
2. HiBob. Segments its own pricing form by 1–49, 50–199 and 200–999 employees. Cheapest route if you already use Bob, but benchmarking is a separate module and it names no regulation.
3. Figures. Says “mid-market and enterprise”, and the only one properly built for the EU directive. Pay equity basics are in every plan.
4. Ravio. The only published price, and useful if you want benchmarking first with equity analysis alongside. Tech-sector data, UK-anchored.
5. Affirmity. States mid-market, names its statistical tests, and the only one selling US state pay data reporting. Best fit if your exposure is US federal or state.
6. Sysarb. Pay equity is the whole product and there is no enterprise-only language, but you get no market data and the analysis needs the middle tier.

If you employ fewer than about 50 people, a tool is probably premature. Below that headcount most comparison groups are too small for a statistical model to say anything reliable, and the honest first step is a levelling exercise plus a spreadsheet review with an employment lawyer. Whatever small business HR software you already run is where the pay data should live in the meantime.

Seven questions for the demo call

Every vendor here will show you a clean dashboard. These are the questions that separate them.

1. What is the statistical model, and which variables count as legitimate explanations for a pay difference?
2. Does the price include the adjusted gap analysis, or only the unadjusted gap?
3. Is market benchmark data included, a separate module, or something I have to bring?
4. Which specific filings and disclosures does the product generate, for which countries, by name?
5. Is remediation modelling in the product, or do I get the diagnosis and nothing else?
6. What has to be true about my job architecture before this works at all?
7. What is the total first-year cost including onboarding, and what is the minimum term?

On the last one, expect a real answer. Three vendors here publish an annual minimum term and one publishes an onboarding fee, so those costs exist whether or not they are on the website.

The short version

Pay equity software is a category where the marketing is well ahead of the disclosure. Two of fifteen vendors publish a price, six of fifteen publish a statistical method, one engages seriously with the regulation driving most of the demand, and two of the best-known names on comparison lists are not selling what the lists say they are.

Practically: sort out your job levels and get consistent ratings out of whatever performance appraisal software you run, decide whether you need internal fairness or market position or both, and shortlist on the two answers vendors are least willing to put in writing — what the model does, and what the first year costs. Then take the output to a lawyer before you change anyone’s pay.