Hay vs Mercer IPE: How the Two Job Evaluation Methods Compare

Hay vs Mercer IPE: How the Two Job Evaluation Methods Compare

If you run compensation for a mid-size or global employer, you have probably been pitched both Hay and Mercer IPE. Both are respected. Both are proprietary. And both will give you a defensible grade structure if you implement them well.

They are not interchangeable, though. They use different factors, different scoring mechanics, and different delivery models. Pick the wrong one and you spend a year fighting a method that does not fit your workforce or your budget.

This guide compares the two side by side so you can decide with facts. You will see how each method scores a job, where each one fits best, and what to ask a vendor before you sign. We also cover the third option many teams overlook: running a point-factor system you own.

TL;DR

• Hay is Korn Ferry's method. It scores jobs on Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability, plus Working Conditions in some versions, using Guide Charts.
• Mercer IPE (International Position Evaluation) scores jobs on five factors: Impact, Communication, Innovation, Knowledge, and Effort.
• Both are point-factor variants. Neither is a different category of job evaluation.
• Hay is strongest for executive and management roles. IPE is strongest when you want global consistency tied to Mercer survey data.
• Both are licensed, consultant-led systems. If you want to own the factors, weights, and scoring, consider a point-factor platform you control.

What Hay and IPE have in common

Start with what they share, because it explains why the choice is harder than it looks.

Both Hay and IPE are point-factor methods. Each breaks a job into components, scores each component against a defined scale, and adds the results into a total. That total places the job in a grade. If you want the foundation first, our guide to the point-factor method covers it.

Both also evaluate the job, not the person. Job evaluation is not performance evaluation. You score what the role requires, not how well the incumbent performs it.

And both are proprietary. You license the method, usually through consultants or a vendor-managed tool, and you do not get to see or change every internal scoring rule.

How Hay works

Korn Ferry's Hay method, formally the Guide Chart-Profile method, has been in use for decades. A Hay overview from the University of Western Ontario describes it as used by more than 5,000 organizations worldwide.

Hay scores jobs on these factors:

• Know-How: the knowledge and skills the job needs, covering technical depth, breadth of management, and interpersonal skills.
• Problem Solving: the thinking environment and the challenge of the thinking required.
• Accountability: how a competently performed job affects organizational results, including freedom to act, size of impact, and type of impact.
• Working Conditions: physical effort, environment, sensory attention, and mental stress. Many corporate applications drop this factor and use the first three.

You score each factor on a Guide Chart, a matrix that converts your judgment into points. The three main factors then combine into a profile. The profile shows the shape of the job, such as whether it leans toward thinking, knowing, or owning outcomes.

That profile is Hay's signature feature. Two jobs can have the same total and very different shapes. A research scientist and a plant manager might both land at 600 points, but the scientist leans on Problem Solving while the manager leans on Accountability. Hay makes that difference visible.

Where Hay shines: executive, senior management, and professional roles, where accountability and judgment drive value.

Where it strains: hourly and operational roles, unless you add Working Conditions. The charts also take training to apply consistently.

For a deeper look, read our Hay job evaluation guide.

How Mercer IPE works

Mercer's International Position Evaluation system was built for global consistency. Mercer's own IPE page lists five factors:

• Impact: a job's depth and breadth of influence on the organization.
• Communication: the communication skills the job needs, including audience and purpose.
• Innovation: the level of problem solving, design, and development the job demands.
• Knowledge: technical skills and knowledge, including people management and geographic context.
• Effort: physical or sensory effort that causes fatigue or strain, and exposure to disagreeable working conditions.

Each factor has defined levels. You assign the level that matches the job content, and the tool produces an IPE grade. Because the same grades apply across countries, a Finance Director in Singapore and one in Chicago can be compared on one scale.

Mercer also ties IPE grades to its salary survey data. If you already buy Mercer surveys, that link saves real time in market pricing. Mercer also positions IPE as supporting compliance with pay equity and transparency rules.

Where IPE shines: multinationals that need one grading language and already use Mercer survey data.

Where it strains: organizations that want to customize factor weights, or that do not use Mercer's surveys.

For more detail, see our Mercer IPE breakdown.

Hay vs IPE: side-by-side comparison

Which should you choose?

Skip the brand debate and answer four questions.

1. Which survey data do you buy? If your market pricing runs on Mercer surveys, IPE reduces friction. If you use Korn Ferry data, Hay does. Matching your evaluation method to your survey source saves you from a translation step every cycle.

2. Who are your jobs? If your hardest decisions sit in the executive and senior professional tiers, Hay's accountability lens is a strong fit. If you manage a broad global job population with consistent grade needs, IPE's scale helps.

3. How much control do you need? With either method, you work inside a framework someone else defines. If your strategy requires different factor weights, such as heavier working conditions for a manufacturer or heavier skill for a professional-services firm, neither will bend far.

4. What can you afford to maintain? Licensing, training, and consultant time recur every year. Price the three-year cost, not the first-year quote.

Here is a quick example. A 3,000-person manufacturer with 40 percent hourly staff, buying Mercer surveys, would likely lean IPE because of the survey link and the Effort factor. A 600-person financial services firm with a heavy executive tier and Korn Ferry pay data would likely lean Hay. Both are reasonable. Neither is the only answer.

The third option: a point-factor system you own

Hay and IPE are two implementations of one idea. You can also run the same idea with factors and weights you define.

That is the PointFactors approach. You select compensable factors, set the weights, define the degree scales, and score jobs in software your team controls. Skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, with sub-factors, give you the same quantitative logic as the proprietary systems. The difference is ownership. For design details, see how to weight compensable factors and our overview of compensable factors. PointFactors is its own point-factor method. It is not a "Hay-style" system.

Want to test a method on your own jobs? The fastest way to compare approaches is to score ten roles you know well. Start free with PointFactors and we will score your job descriptions live.

If you are weighing vendors more broadly, our job evaluation software comparison and the Aon comparison cover the rest of the field. For how evaluation fits with salary data, read market pricing vs job evaluation.

What to ask before you sign

Whatever you choose, get written answers to these:

• Can we see the full factor definitions and scoring rules, or only outputs?
• What does it cost to evaluate a new job after year one?
• Can our own analysts score jobs, or do consultants have to?
• How do you handle appeals and re-evaluation?
• How does the method document its work for a pay equity audit?

That last point matters more each year. Pay transparency and equal-value rules reward documented, repeatable scoring. The U.S. Department of Labor's Equal Pay Act guidance and the EU's Directive 2023/970 both put weight on objective criteria. A method you can fully explain is a method you can defend.

Frequently asked questions

Is Hay the same as Mercer IPE?

No. Both are point-factor methods, but Hay uses Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability with a Guide Chart-Profile approach. IPE uses five factors: Impact, Communication, Innovation, Knowledge, and Effort.

Which is more accurate, Hay or IPE?

Neither is inherently more accurate. Accuracy depends on how consistently your evaluators apply the method and how well your job data is documented. Poor inputs produce poor grades in either system.

Can I switch from Hay to IPE?

Yes, but plan for a re-evaluation. The factors differ, so grades do not convert one to one. Build a crosswalk using a set of benchmark jobs and expect some jobs to move.

Do I need Hay or IPE to be defensible in a pay equity audit?

No. What auditors look for is a documented, consistent, gender-neutral method applied to all jobs. A well-run point-factor system that you control can meet that bar.

Which method is cheaper?

It varies by contract, organization size, and how much consulting you need. Compare three-year total cost, including training and per-job evaluation fees.

Is point-factor the only job evaluation method?

No. Ranking, classification, and factor comparison are also used. Our guide to the four methods of job evaluation explains each, and the job evaluation overview shows how they fit together.

Can a small company use Hay or IPE?

You can, but the licensing and consulting overhead often outweighs the benefit below a few hundred employees. A lighter point-factor platform usually fits better.

Bottom line

Choose Hay if executive-level judgment and accountability drive your pay decisions and you use Korn Ferry data. Choose IPE if you need a single global grade scale and already run on Mercer surveys. Consider an owned point-factor system if you want control over factors, weights, and cost.

Ready to see an owned point-factor system in action? Start free with PointFactors or review pricing to see how it works for your team.

By Justin Hampton, founder and CEO of PointFactors.