PointFactors vs Hay Methodology (Korn Ferry): Which Is Right for Your Org?

PointFactors vs Hay Methodology (Korn Ferry)

If you are choosing a job evaluation method in 2026, the Hay method is almost certainly on your shortlist. It has been the default for large enterprises for seventy years. But "default" and "best fit for your org" are not the same thing. This comparison breaks down how the Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method — now owned by Korn Ferry — stacks up against PointFactors, an AI-powered point-factor platform, on methodology, speed, cost, transparency, and control. Both produce defensible job evaluations. They get there very differently. By the end you will know which one matches your team's size, budget, timeline, and appetite for owning the process in-house. We will be fair: the Hay method earns its reputation, and there are situations where it is still the right call.

TL;DR — Key takeaways

• The Hay job evaluation method is a consultant-led, proprietary point-factor system scoring jobs on Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability.
• PointFactors applies the same point-factor logic as configurable software your team runs in-house — in hours, not months.
• Hay's strengths: brand recognition, an integrated global pay database, and a turnkey standard for large enterprises.
• PointFactors' strengths: speed, cost, transparency, and full control over factors and weights.
• The right choice depends on org size, budget, timeline, and whether you want to own the methodology or outsource it.

What is the Hay method?

The Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method is a point-factor job evaluation system developed by Edward N. Hay and Dale Purves in the 1950s. Korn Ferry acquired Hay Group in December 2015 and now markets the method as part of its broader job evaluation and reward offering.

It scores every job on three core factors:

• Know-How — the depth and breadth of knowledge, the managerial scope, and the human-relations skill a job requires.
• Problem Solving — the thinking environment and the challenge of the problems the job must resolve. Hay expresses this as a percentage of Know-How.
• Accountability — the freedom to act, the magnitude of the area affected, and the job's impact on end results.

Evaluators use "guide charts" — numerical step tables — to assign points on each factor. The output is a total Hay point score and a "profile" that shows whether a role is weighted toward know-how, problem solving, or accountability. The method is consultant-led: Korn Ferry trains your evaluators or runs the evaluation for you, and the guide charts themselves are proprietary intellectual property.

Note the terminology carefully. The Hay system is a specific trademarked method, not a generic label. It is one well-known variant of the broader point-factor method — not a separate category of job evaluation.

What is PointFactors?

PointFactors is an AI-powered point-factor platform. It applies the same fundamental logic as Hay — score jobs against weighted compensable factors to determine internal worth — but the evaluation runs as software your team controls, not as a consulting engagement.

You configure the factors and weights to match your compensation philosophy, feed in job descriptions, and the platform produces a draft score with a written rationale for every job. A trained member of your team reviews and approves each score. What a committee would take months to do, your team finishes in hours.

The methodology itself is not new. Point-factor evaluation has been the gold standard for defensibility since the 1940s, and a documented system is the strongest evidence you can bring to a pay-equity audit. What PointFactors changes is who runs it, how fast, and how transparently. For the full picture of where this fits among evaluation approaches, see our guide to job evaluation methods, process, and modern approaches.

Head-to-head comparison

Methodology: fixed vs. configurable factors

The deepest difference is philosophical. Hay uses three fixed factors and standardized guide charts. That standardization is the source of its biggest strength and its biggest constraint.

The strength: every job in every Hay-evaluated organization is scored against the same scales, which makes Hay points comparable across companies. That is what powers Korn Ferry's benchmarking.

The constraint: those three factors encode a particular view of what work is worth — one built around managerial scope and accountability. If your compensation philosophy emphasizes something the guide charts under-weight — deep individual technical contribution, for example, or customer-facing impact in a flat organization — you are adapting your strategy to the tool rather than the other way around.

PointFactors inverts that. You choose the factors and the weights. A professional-services firm can weight skill at 45 percent of the total; a manufacturer with significant hazards can give working conditions real weight instead of a token allocation. The weighting encodes your strategy rather than a consultant's standard. If you want to understand how factor selection and weighting drive outcomes, our article on compensable factors walks through the design choices in detail.

Neither approach is "more accurate." A fixed framework trades flexibility for cross-company comparability. A configurable one trades that comparability for fit. Which trade-off is right depends on whether external benchmarking or internal-strategy fit matters more to you.

Speed and cost

A traditional Hay engagement for a few hundred jobs runs on a consulting timeline — typically weeks to months, depending on scope, evaluator training, and committee availability. The cost is structured as professional-services fees, which scale with the size of the engagement and any re-engagement when your job catalog changes.

PointFactors compresses the evaluation step from months to hours. The platform drafts a score and a rationale for each job; your team's role shifts from primary evaluator to auditor. The cost is a subscription, which makes re-evaluation — the part organizations most often skip — a routine activity rather than a budget line you have to justify.

This matters most when work changes fast. If you are moving toward a skills-based architecture, integrating an acquisition, or re-evaluating hundreds of roles because AI has reshaped them, the consulting-engagement model becomes a recurring expense. A platform you already own does not.

See it on your own jobs. The fastest way to judge any method is to run it on roles you know well. Book a 20-minute PointFactors demo and watch your own job descriptions get scored in real time.

Transparency and control

Hay's guide charts are proprietary. Evaluators are trained to apply them, but the underlying step values and the logic of the charts are Korn Ferry's intellectual property. When an employee asks "why is my role scored where it is?", you can point to the factor profile — but the deepest layer of the method is not something you fully own or can independently audit.

PointFactors is built the opposite way. Every factor definition, every level anchor, and every weight is documented and visible to your team. Every score ships with a written rationale traceable to those definitions. When your legal team prepares for a pay-equity audit, or an employee questions a band placement, the entire chain of reasoning is in your hands.

This is not a small point. Pay transparency legislation — including the EU Pay Transparency Directive — increasingly requires employers to demonstrate that pay structures rest on "objective, gender-neutral criteria." You cannot defend a range you cannot fully explain. Owning the methodology end to end is becoming a compliance asset, not just a convenience.

When the Hay method is still the right choice

A fair comparison names the cases where the incumbent wins. Choose Hay if:

• You are a large, global enterprise that needs a single evaluation standard applied consistently across dozens of countries, and you value Korn Ferry's worldwide consulting footprint to deliver it.
• External benchmarking is central to your comp strategy. Hay points feed directly into Korn Ferry's pay databases. If you make pay decisions primarily by reference to Hay-benchmarked market data, staying inside that ecosystem has real value.
• You want to fully outsource the methodology. Some organizations deliberately do not want to own job evaluation in-house. A consultant-led engagement with a recognized brand is a reasonable choice if that is your operating model.
• Stakeholders specifically trust the Hay name. In some boards and executive teams, "we use Hay" carries weight. That credibility is a real, if intangible, asset.

When PointFactors is the better fit

Choose PointFactors if:

• Speed matters. You need hundreds of jobs evaluated in weeks, not quarters — because of a reorganization, an acquisition, a pay-transparency deadline, or a structure that has not been touched in years.
• You want to own the methodology. Your team should be able to see, audit, and adjust every factor and weight without a consulting dependency.
• Your comp philosophy is specific. You pay for things a standardized three-factor model under-weights, and you want the evaluation to reflect that.
• Re-evaluation needs to be routine. Work changes constantly. A subscription platform makes ongoing governance affordable instead of a recurring project.
• Defensibility and transparency are priorities. You want a documented, explainable score for every job that your legal team can stand behind.

If you are still mapping the landscape, our comparison of the four methods of job evaluation and our explainer on the factor comparison method provide the wider context.

Switching from Hay to PointFactors

Moving off Hay does not mean throwing away your existing work. Because both systems are point-factor at their core, your Hay profiles and the institutional knowledge behind them translate cleanly.

A typical migration runs in three steps. First, map your compensation philosophy onto a configurable factor set — this is where you decide what the Hay charts under-weighted for your organization. Second, run a calibration batch: score 20 to 30 roles you know well in PointFactors and compare the results against their Hay scores to confirm the framework behaves sensibly. Third, evaluate the full catalog and build your levels and bands on the new foundation.

The calibration step is the one not to skip. It is how you confirm the new framework agrees with your considered judgment before it becomes the system of record.

FAQ

What is the Hay method of job evaluation? The Hay Guide Chart-Profile Method is a point-factor job evaluation system that scores jobs on three factors — Know-How, Problem Solving, and Accountability — using proprietary guide charts. It was developed in the 1950s and is now owned by Korn Ferry.

Is the Hay method the same as the point-factor method? The Hay method is one specific, trademarked variant of the point-factor method. The point-factor method is the broader category: any system that scores jobs against weighted compensable factors. Hay, Mercer IPE, and PointFactors are all point-factor systems with different factors and scales.

Who owns the Hay job evaluation method now? Korn Ferry. It acquired Hay Group in December 2015 and markets the methodology as part of its job evaluation and reward consulting services.

How is PointFactors different from Hay? Both are point-factor systems. Hay is a consultant-led engagement with three fixed factors and proprietary guide charts. PointFactors is a self-serve AI platform with configurable factors that your team owns, runs, and audits in-house — typically in hours rather than months.

Can I switch from Hay to PointFactors without redoing everything? Yes. Because both are point-factor systems, your Hay profiles and the reasoning behind them carry over. A calibration batch of 20 to 30 known roles confirms the new framework agrees with your existing judgment before full rollout.

Which method is more defensible in a pay-equity audit? Both produce documented, traceable scores, which is what auditors look for. PointFactors adds an advantage: every factor definition and weight is fully visible and owned by your team, so the entire chain of reasoning is independently auditable rather than resting on proprietary charts.

Ready to compare on your own jobs?

The honest test of any job evaluation method is how it performs on roles you already understand. PointFactors evaluates every job in your organization using the point-factor method — automated for speed, audited by your team for accuracy, and documented for your legal team. Book a 20-minute demo and see your structure scored before you commit to anything.

About the author: Justin Hampton is the founder and CEO of PointFactors. He has spent 18 years designing job-evaluation systems and pay structures for organizations ranging from Series B startups to Fortune 500 enterprises.