Compensation planning
Best compensation planning software for your next pay review
Compare seven pay-review tools
| Starting order | Reason to invite | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| 1Comprehensive | Run salary and bonus reviews around the HRIS you intend to keep, with configurable formulas and budget controls. | Billing covers the whole workforce, not just the managers making recommendations. Price all 500 employees. |
| 2Pave | Combine pay reviews with market data and equity tools; configure warnings or blocks for exceptions. | Planning is an add-on to Agentic Workflows. Active-cycle HRIS data does not refresh automatically. |
| 3Pequity | Allocate recommended increases and separate discretionary funds across planning groups. | A group’s fund cannot split between two groups above it in the documented planning hierarchy. |
| 4Aeqium | Let the compensation owner configure formulas, proration and approval workflows. | The employee portal and some analysis tools cost extra; the vendor describes average onboarding as four to six weeks. |
| 5Lattice Compensation | Use existing Lattice review context when managers decide pay increases. | The spend chart excludes drafts, and its over-budget warning does not stop the cycle. |
| 6Figures Companion | Give different owners separate increase budgets, eligibility rules and access permissions. | Companion includes the wider Structure package. Qualify the included benchmarks against this US workforce. |
| 7ChartHop Compensation | Connect pay reviews to the organisation and headcount model you already maintain in ChartHop. | Exceeding a guideline can trigger a flag without preventing submission. A new buyer must also price Core. |
Choose your first demos · Test currencies and effective dates
What should this purchase make easier?
For a 500-person employer, the aim is to finish pay reviews without chasing 40 separate manager spreadsheets. Managers need a clear allowance, HR needs consistent decisions, and Finance needs to know what the approved changes cost.
Start with salary increases, promotions and cash bonuses. Add market data, equity tools or rewards statements when you need them.
1. Comprehensive: salary and bonus reviews
Comprehensive is a sensible first choice when the HRIS stays and the pay-review process needs replacing. It brings compensation cycles, ranges and employee communication around that existing system.
Its FAQ describes configurable formulas, hard caps, soft warnings and changes during an active cycle. That gives HR flexibility when Finance changes the budget. It also needs an owner who decides when a revision requires another approval.
Why we would buy: to organise a mixed salary-and-bonus cycle without changing the HRIS. What changes the call: pricing covers the whole workforce, not just the managers using the tool. Get the complete 500-person cost.
2. Pave: planning with market data and equity tools
Compare Pave when you also need market data and equity tools. Its configuration guidance distinguishes a warning requiring justification from a hard stop. That is useful for applying different exception rules; it is not a feature unique to Pave.
Compensation Planning is listed as an add-on to Agentic Workflows. Price the required package, not Market Data Lite. Free access to some salary data is not a free pay-review system.
HRIS data does not automatically refresh during an active cycle. Give one person responsibility for late salary or reporting-line changes. Include the market data and equity tools you need in the quote.
3. Pequity: allocating budgets across planning groups
Pequity documents budgets derived from recommendations, formulas, fixed group funds, or recommendations plus discretionary funds. Compare Pequity if managers receive calculated increase budgets while executives retain a separate discretionary allowance.
The same guide says a planning group’s fund cannot split into two separate groups higher in the planning chain. If your matrix structure needs that split, require a worked configuration before selecting it.
Its implementation guide allocates five hours to setup and training, including work on the initial cycle by its architects. Agree which revisions fit and what additional help costs. The guide identifies Pequity as an ADP company.
Our verdict: raise it above the first two for a compensation owner whose hardest problem is distributing and rolling up funds. Keep it lower if the required split cannot be represented cleanly.
4. Aeqium: configurable formulas and approval workflows
Aeqium Foundations includes cycle workflows, budgets, bands and compensation statements. Its product describes no-code formulas and proration logic, giving it a place when a compensation owner wants more control over configuration.
We would consider it when the policy fits the business but maintaining it in spreadsheets is the problem. The employee portal and some analysis features are add-ons, so build the quote around the review you actually plan to run.
The plans page describes average onboarding as four to six weeks. Confirm the implementation timetable for your first review.
5. Lattice: pay reviews for existing customers
Lattice supports manager budget allocation, raise guidance and custom approval hierarchies. Test it first if managers already use Lattice for performance reviews.
Changing the total budget also does not redistribute existing manager allocations automatically.
The same guide makes employees eligible for merit or promotion increases, never both. If your policy names both components for a promoted employee, demonstrate how the full authorised increase is represented and explained before assuming a like-for-like fit.
Our verdict: test it first if you already pay for Lattice. Choose another route if you require a submission block that the proposed configuration cannot demonstrate. A budget warning does not prevent a manager from submitting an over-budget recommendation.
6. Figures: separate budgets and permissions
Managers can edit the budgets they can access; an employee’s total change combines the allocations. That is useful when general increases, promotions and confidential adjustments should not become one manager-controlled pot.
The Companion plan description includes annual and off-cycle compensation reviews on top of Structure. For this US brief, qualify any benchmark dataset against the actual jobs and locations before assigning value to the data bundle.
Our verdict: move it up when distinct budget ownership is the main requirement. Do not buy a benchmark subscription and assume the complete review workflow and integrations are included; get the selected modules in the quote.
7. ChartHop: compensation alongside headcount planning
ChartHop places compensation alongside performance, budget and organisational structure. Compare it if you already use ChartHop for organisation and headcount planning.
Its reviewer FAQ says exceeding guideline targets can be flagged but does not prevent submission. After submission, reviewers retain view-only access to changes during approval. Show the actual manager and approver views; do not infer a hard limit from a warning colour.
Our verdict: test it first if you already use ChartHop for organisation and headcount planning. Current pricing asks buyers to configure Core and modules. Cost that whole requirement rather than reusing an old standalone per-person headline.
Price the complete first year
Request the same quote from each supplier:
- Population and reviews: 500 employees, including 40 manager participants, one main annual cycle and the same off-cycle allowance.
- Setup and services: implementation, integration direction, data subscriptions, payroll exports and administrator training.
- Renewal: the first renewal total and how changes in employee numbers affect billing.
Price all 500 employees, not just the managers.
| Provider | Published pricing | What to confirm in your quote |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | Annual billing based on total employees, with periodic prorated headcount adjustments. | Numeric rate, adjustment cadence and bundled datasets; 40 manager licences are not a substitute for 500 employees. |
| Pave | Planning add-on within the Agentic Workflows package structure. | Entire required platform, planning and communication scope. No published price found in the cited material. |
| Pequity | Custom quote. Published setup/training allowance is described above. | Exact HRIS connection, further setup iterations and cycle support. |
| Aeqium | Foundations and optional analysis/communication modules. | Total for the chosen modules and implementation; no published price found in the cited material. |
| Lattice | Compensation is an additional $6 per seat/month, billed annually in USD. | For 500 seats, $36,000 a year for the add-on alone. Required base product, tax and any other services remain separate. |
| Figures | Price varies with headcount and modules; Companion includes review functionality. | Written package inclusions, required data and integration scope. |
| ChartHop | Core plus selected modules, quoted to the buyer. | Incremental cost for an incumbent versus full cost for a new customer. |
Calculate first-year supplier cost = required subscriptions + one-off setup + paid data + integration/services + applicable tax.
Record internal effort separately. An illustrative 80 hours of data preparation, 40 manager training hours and 40 hours of parallel reconciliation make 160 hours; at an assumed $60 blended hourly cost, that is $9,600 of capacity. It is not a vendor fee or a measured saving.
Worked example: why Finance can see two correct totals
In the fictional example below, annual base-pay increases total $17,200. With a 1 July effective date, only $8,600 falls in that calendar year. Add a $6,000 one-off bonus and the simplified extra cash requirement becomes $14,600, before employer costs.
Your software should keep these meanings clear. A lower current-year figure does not mean the annual salary commitment has disappeared.
See the six-record calculation and assumptions
Use these invented records in every finalist’s demo. The test policy is deliberately explicit: 4% merit for eligible non-promoted employees; halve that rate for the part-year case; a promotion receives an 8% total increase instead of merit; one recent hire is ineligible; C06 is eligible for the one-off bonus only.
All annual base changes take effect on 1 July. This is a fictional employer policy, not a legal rule or a recommendation for any real employee.
| Record and policy input | Annual base → approved base | Annual increase / six-month base cost |
|---|---|---|
| C01 · full-year; $100,000; 4% merit | $100,000 → $104,000 | $4,000 / $2,000 |
| C02 · part-year; $80,000; 4% × 0.5 | $80,000 → $81,600 | $1,600 / $800 |
| C03 · promoted; $90,000; 8% total | $90,000 → $97,200 | $7,200 / $3,600 |
| C04 · recent hire; $70,000; ineligible | $70,000 → $70,000 | $0 / $0 |
| C05 · full-year; $110,000; 4% merit | $110,000 → $114,400 | $4,400 / $2,200 |
| C06 · $120,000; no base increase; $6,000 one-off bonus | $120,000 → $120,000 | $0 base / $0 base; bonus separately |
| Total base salaries | $570,000 → $587,200 | $17,200 annual / $8,600 six-month base cost |
Set the annual base-increase budget at $18,000. Correct utilisation is $17,200, leaving $800. If the $6,000 bonus is also paid in the second half, the simplified six-month incremental cash requirement is $14,600.
Employer taxes, benefits, payment timing and payroll-period rounding are excluded. The annual salary commitment, period cash cost and one-off bonus must remain distinguishable.
Now keep C03’s $7,200 promotion in draft while submitting the other base changes. A submitted-only view shows $10,000; the eventual authorised base changes remain $17,200. The vendor passes by identifying the view’s scope and making pending decisions discoverable. It need not show one universal number on every screen.
Finish with a decision managers can explain
Choose the system that makes the approved increase, its effective date and the reason visible to the right people. Managers should leave the process ready to explain a pay decision; HR should not need another spreadsheet to reconstruct it.
Before launch, reconcile the final employee letters with the payroll input. Keep one owner for corrections made after approval.
If you already use Lattice or ChartHop, test their compensation tools before adding a separate system.
Ready to narrow your shortlist?
People Ops Buyer handles your request and follows up about next steps. No meeting is booked until confirmed.
Questions buyers ask
Which compensation tools fit a 500-person US employer?
Start with Comprehensive for salary and bonus reviews, Pave when you also need market data and equity tools, and Pequity for allocating manager budgets and discretionary funds. If you already use Lattice or ChartHop, test its compensation module first.
Does a budget warning stop a compensation cycle?
Not necessarily. Lattice says an over-budget callout does not stop its cycle; ChartHop says exceeding a guideline does not prevent submission. Pave documents separate soft and hard stops. Test the actual proposed configuration.
Is an annual salary increase the same as this year’s cash cost?
No. In the fictional example, $17,200 of annual base increases effective halfway through the year adds $8,600 of base cost for that half-year. A $6,000 one-off bonus brings the simplified period total to $14,600, before the stated exclusions.
Is Lattice Compensation $6 per employee per month all-in?
The current public page presents $6 per seat/month as an add-on. At 500 seats that illustrates $36,000 annually for the add-on alone; it does not establish the full required package price.
Sources and research scope
Primary pricing, product and help material inspected on 2 October 2026. Some help bodies were available through indexed extracts where direct retrieval failed; those entries are identified below. Rankings are editorial fit judgments, not hands-on vendor scores. No sales quotes or customer accounts were obtained. The six records and internal-capacity assumptions are fictional. Pequity help pages could not be retrieved on recheck; the cited indexed material retains its earlier research date. Comprehensive, Pave, Aeqium, Lattice and Figures plan or pricing pages rechecked 6 October 2026. Other operating evidence retains its recorded research date.
- Comprehensive product overviewConfigurable cycles, ranges, rewards and existing-system integration; vendor positioning.
- Comprehensive operational FAQActive-cycle edits; all-employee annual billing; headcount adjustments; implementation milestones.
- Pave cycle configurationActive-cycle HRIS freeze; soft/hard stops; budget philosophy; source-data uploads.
- Pave approval chainsFull indexed help body: regenerated chains discard custom edits; windows require separate updates.
- Pave pricingCompensation Planning listed as add-on to Agentic Workflows; Market Data Lite is different.
- Pequity budget methodsFull indexed help body: recommendation, computed, fixed and mixed funds; one upstream rollup limit.
- Pequity implementationFive setup/training hours; architect time included in allowance; testing; ADP ownership footer.
- Pequity pricingCustom quote; intended buyer has compensation resource and maturing technology stack.
- Pequity exportsIndexed help: group budgets, change history, comments and sent-letter exports.
- Aeqium plansFoundations scope; optional analysis/portal modules; free configured demo offer and four-to-six-week onboarding claim.
- Aeqium product overviewVendor-described formula/proration configuration and AI execution; not independently tested.
- Lattice pricingCompensation add-on $6 per seat/month; annual USD billing; base products separate.
- Lattice active-cycle raise budgetSubmitted-only spend chart; warnings do not stop cycle; total budget versus allocations; merit/promotion exclusive.
- Lattice cycle managementManager allocation, guidance and custom approval hierarchy.
- Figures plansCompanion description includes annual/off-cycle reviews; price by headcount/modules, quote required.
- Figures multiple-budget guideFull French indexed body: separate eligibility, compensation components and admin-only budgets.
- ChartHop compensation overviewCompensation alongside performance, budgets and organisation model.
- ChartHop reviewer FAQIndexed help: exceeding guideline can be flagged but does not prevent submission; read-only access after submission.
- ChartHop pricingCore plus selected modules; quote configuration, no numeric fee established.