What are merit increases (2 figures)
The median published figure in the Merit Increase and Pay Review Benchmark is 3.35 percent across 2 sources' own pages (range 3.20 to 3.50 percent), read 12 October 2026.
Reviewvo sells its own paid plan in this category (our pricing). It is not counted here: every figure in this index is another provider's own published price, read from its own page.
2 of the 7 named sources read in full publish a figure; 5 publish none, read 12 October 2026.
The median is up 0.15 percent since 26 September 2026 (was 3.20 percent across 1).
By jurisdiction
| Breakdown | Median | Range | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdictionUK | 3.5% | 3.5 to 3.5% | 1 |
Every figure, with its source
One row per published figure: the figure as the source's own page publishes it, the page, and the day it was read. A figure that is not on a page we read is not on this one.
| Source | Figure | Breakdown | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Office for National Statistics | 3.5% | UK | 2026-10-10 |
| BLS Employment Cost Index news release | 3.2% | 2026-10-12 |
The sentence each figure was read from (2)
- Office for National Statistics, read 2026-10-10:
Annual growth in employees' average earnings was 3.5% for regular earnings (excluding bonuses) and 3.9% for total earnings (including bonuses).
- BLS Employment Cost Index news release, read 2026-10-12:
Wages and salaries increased 3.2 percent and benefit costs increased 3.8 percent over the year.
Read in full, publishes no figure
5 named sources were read in full on the dates shown and print no usable figure. They are counted, never filled in.
- BLS Employment Cost Index, read 2026-09-11: every candidate on the page was refused
- Statistics Canada, average weekly earnings table 14-10-0064-01, read 2026-10-11: read in full and no accepted figure on the page
- Fair Work Ombudsman newsroom (the wage-review and penalty releases), read 2026-10-11: every candidate on the page was refused
- BLS National Compensation Survey, employee benefits, read 2026-10-12: every candidate on the page was refused
- Fair Work Ombudsman, the annual wage review, read 2026-10-11: read in full and no accepted figure on the page
Methodology
Every row is a verbatim sentence read from the named source's own page through our fetch service on the date shown, hash-pinned to the stored read (the sha of the page's visible text; the raw page is mirrored to R2).
2 of the 7 named sources that could be read published a usable figure; 5 published none and are recorded as not published, never filled in; 1 could not be read (blocked, dead or unreachable) and count nowhere.
The headline figures (median, minimum, maximum, quartiles) are over ONE figure per source in % (a source's median where its page yielded several accepted sentences), so N counts sources, never sentences; 21 candidate sentence(s) were refused by a reviewer with the reason recorded.
The fuller derivation this dataset is chartered to grow into (not yet what the figures above are; they are each source's own published figure as read): the authority's own wage-growth figure per jurisdiction and period (ECI wages and salaries, average weekly earnings, the annual wage review decision, the public-sector pay remit) set beside the merit matrix a buyer actually needs: what a 'meets expectations' and an 'exceeds' increase is once the market figure is the pool; changed-since on each release, which is the news every review season
21 candidate sentences on these pages were refused by a reviewer; each refusal and its reason is recorded in the review ledger.
Sources (8)
- BLS Employment Cost Index(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- BLS Employment Cost Index news release(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Office for National Statistics(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Statistics Canada, average weekly earnings table 14-10-0064-01(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Fair Work Ombudsman newsroom (the wage-review and penalty releases)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- BLS National Compensation Survey, employee benefits(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Fair Work Ombudsman, the annual wage review(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Office for National Statistics(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
Cite or embed this figure
Cite or embed this figure
The median published figure in the Merit Increase and Pay Review Benchmark is 3.35 percent across 2 sources' own pages (range 3.20 to 3.50 percent), read 12 October 2026.
2 of the 7 named sources read in full publish a figure; 5 publish none, read 12 October 2026.
Merit Increase and Pay Review Benchmark, jurisdiction UK: median 3.50 percent across 1 source, read 12 October 2026.
The median is up 0.15 percent since 26 September 2026 (was 3.20 percent across 1).
Cite as: "Reviewvo Merit Increase and Pay Review Benchmark", updated 2026-10-23, https://reviewvo.com/datasets/merit-increase-and-pay-review-benchmark/.
Download the CSV (2 rows, computed 2026-10-23)