A regional pay rate from our listings mostly maps which sources were read
In 21,617 Hired Creative listings read on 2026-10-14, 97.4% of the pay shown sits in the 11 sources that show pay on at least 10% of their listings, which supply 17.3% of the export.
Of 21,617 live listings in the Hired Creative export of 2026-10-14, 1,994 (9.2%) show pay, as pay text or as a structured salary field. Of those 1,994, 1,942 (97.4%) sit in the 11 sources that show pay on at least 10% of their own listings. Those 11 sources supply 3,729 listings (17.3% of the export). Across the other 17,888 listings, 0.3% show pay. A "pay transparency by region" rate built from this export therefore mostly reflects which sources Hired Creative read in each region. It should not be read as how open employers or markets are.
Key points
- In 21,617 listings read on 2026-10-14, the 11 sources that show pay on at least 10% of their listings hold 97.4% of all pay shown.
- Outside those sources, 0.3% of 17,888 listings show pay; the 10,279 listings from LinkedIn feeds show it on 15 (0.1%).
- Among five region groups of 1,000+ listings, the gaps between the Americas or Europe and Asia-Pacific, MENA or Africa follow how many listings came from LinkedIn and pay-showing sources.
- Inside the same sources, Americas listings still show pay more often than Europe listings in our data, and this rests on a small number of employers.
What the data covers
The export holds 21,617 live listings from 159 sources (job boards, applicant-tracking feeds and LinkedIn feeds). Pay and region fields depend on which sources Hired Creative reads, and each source covers some regions far more than others. A gap between regions is therefore treated first as a possible source-mix effect, and tested as one before it is reported as a market fact. The figures describe one export on one date. They carry no claim about change over time.
Most pay sits in a few sources
A listing shows pay if it has pay text or a structured salary minimum or maximum. In the export, 1,469 listings (6.8%) have pay text, 1,333 (6.2%) have a structured salary, and 808 have both. Pay text alone is the most concentrated: Remote Rocketship (807 listings), Ashby (525) and Pinpoint (84) hold 96.4% of the 1,469 with pay text. Counting both kinds of pay, Remote Rocketship, Ashby and Reed hold 79.1% of the 1,994 listings that show pay.
The 11 sources are defined by their own pay rate, so their large share of all pay is partly built in. What the count adds is how little pay exists outside them. Inside the 11, 52.1% of 3,729 listings show pay. "Pay-showing" labels an outcome in the export. It is not a feature of a platform.
Show the numbers
| Source group | % | Listings (n) |
|---|---|---|
| 11 sources that show pay on at least 10% of their listings | 52.1% | 3,729 |
| All other sources | 0.3% | 17,888 |
| Of which LinkedIn feeds | 0.1% | 10,279 |
Source: Hired Creative listings export, 2026-10-14 (n=21,617). The first group is defined by its own pay rate, so its bar is high by construction. LinkedIn feeds are part of the second group.
A further 35 sources with at least 30 listings each (5,607 listings) show no pay of either kind. Greenhouse, the largest single source, supplies 3,018 listings (14.0% of the export), and 23 of them (0.8%) show pay. Ashby, also an applicant-tracking board, shows pay on 59.0% of 890 listings.
LinkedIn feeds show almost no pay anywhere
LinkedIn feeds supply 10,279 of the 21,617 listings (47.6%). Of those, 15 (0.1%) show pay. The near-zero holds in every region group: the highest count is 13 of 2,876 LinkedIn listings in the Americas group. LinkedIn listings therefore cannot show a regional difference in pay in either direction. The data do not show whether LinkedIn omits pay or whether Hired Creative's collection cannot see it.
Regional gaps follow the source mix, with one exception
Across the five region groups with at least 1,000 listings, the raw share of listings that show pay runs from 0.6% to 16.7%, a ratio of 29.8 between the highest and the lowest.
Show the numbers
| Region group | % | Listings (n) |
|---|---|---|
| Americas | 16.7% | 8,252 |
| Europe | 7.5% | 4,363 |
| Asia-Pacific | 1.9% | 3,645 |
| MENA | 0.6% | 2,495 |
| Africa | 1% | 1,129 |
Source: Hired Creative listings export, 2026-10-14 (n=21,617). Region groups with at least 1,000 listings, ordered by number of listings, not by rate.
The share of each group's listings that come from LinkedIn feeds differs widely.
Show the numbers
| Region group | % | Listings (n) |
|---|---|---|
| Americas | 34.9% | 8,252 |
| Europe | 34.3% | 4,363 |
| Asia-Pacific | 74.9% | 3,645 |
| MENA | 84.2% | 2,495 |
| Africa | 93% | 1,129 |
Source: Hired Creative listings export, 2026-10-14 (n=21,617). Same region groups and order as the previous chart.
The share of listings from pay-showing sources runs the other way: 25.9% in the Americas group, 21.1% in Europe, 6.2% in Asia-Pacific, 2.0% in MENA and 2.7% in Africa. The gaps between the Americas or Europe and Asia-Pacific, MENA or Africa follow how many listings came from LinkedIn and from pay-showing sources. As a check, each listing was given its own source's overall pay rate as an expected value. The 29.8-fold spread in raw rates shrinks to a 2.27-fold spread in observed over expected.
The Americas and Europe groups do not fit that pattern. Their LinkedIn shares (34.9% and 34.3%) and pay-showing source shares (25.9% and 21.1%) are close, yet 16.7% of Americas listings show pay against 7.5% of Europe listings. Inside the pay-showing sources the difference remains: 62.5% of 2,141 Americas listings against 35.5% of 922 Europe listings. At Ashby, 75.1% of 639 Americas listings show pay against 9.0% of 177 Europe listings. At Remote Rocketship the figures are 56.8% of 1,162 against 19.4% of 372. Across the 8 sources where both groups have at least 30 listings, the listing-weighted difference is 18.9 percentage points lower in Europe.
Within the same source, then, Americas listings show pay more often than Europe listings in these data. This rests on a small number of employers, and listings from one employer are not independent observations, so the piece does not treat it as a measured regional effect. It offers no explanation and ranks no region.
Employers matter inside sources
Source mix is not the whole picture. Among 283 company names that appear both in a pay-showing source and in another source, 514 of 960 listings (53.5%) in the pay-showing sources show pay, against 19 of 1,426 (1.3%) elsewhere. These are different postings, and the data do not show why the rate changes between sources. Within a source, companies also differ. Among companies with at least 3 listings in the source, at Ashby 23 of 66 show pay on every listing, 22 on none and 21 on some. At Remote Rocketship the counts are 33, 48 and 15 of 96. Source and employer both carry signal, and the data do not support a reading in which employers play no part.
Method
- Data: the Hired Creative listings export of 2026-10-14. It holds 21,617 live listings, 159 sources and 9,394 distinct company names (company names lower-cased and trimmed).
- Pay text: the export's has_salary_text field equals 1. Structured pay: salary_min or salary_max is not empty. A listing "shows pay" if it has either.
- Source: the export's source field. LinkedIn feeds: every source whose name starts with "linkedin".
- Pay-showing sources: sources where at least 10% of listings show pay. These are ashby, designengineer, himalayas, jobicy, pinpoint, reed, remoteok, remoterocketship, tryremotely, welcometothejungle and yc. At a 5% threshold the count is 12 sources holding 97.7% of pay shown, and at 25% it is 10 sources holding 96.7%.
- Region: the export's coarse region field. Region groups are compared only where they have at least 1,000 listings. All listings count in every total.
- Expected rate: each listing is assigned the overall pay rate of its source. A region group's expected count is the sum over its listings, and the check compares observed with expected counts.
- Within-source comparisons: a region cell is used only where it has at least 30 listings. The 8-source difference is the listing-weighted Europe minus Americas difference over sources where both cells qualify.
- Company consistency: companies with at least 3 listings in one source are counted as showing pay on every listing, none or some.
- Same-company comparison: company names matched as lower-cased, trimmed text.
- Countries with fewer than 30 listings, and any whose separate reporting could identify a sensitive location, are pooled.
- A listing-level shuffle test (region labels shuffled within source, 1,000 repetitions) was also run. It treats listings as independent, which they are not, so the piece does not rely on it. No other significance test or interval is used.
Limits
- The figures do not measure how open employers or markets are. The overall 9.2% is a product of which sources Hired Creative reads.
- The 11 pay-showing sources are chosen by their pay rate, so the 97.4% is partly built in. The rate outside them stays between 0.3% and 0.4% at the 5%, 10% and 25% thresholds.
- What looks like a property of a source combines the source with Hired Creative's collection. Ashby's public job-posting API returns compensation only when a request sets includeCompensation=true. Greenhouse's Job Board API returns pay ranges only when a request sets pay_transparency, on the single-job endpoint. Lever's Postings API treats the salary range as optional. The data do not show whether Hired Creative's collectors send these parameters. If they do not, a low figure for a source reflects collection, not the employers using it.
- Remote Rocketship, which supplies 809 of the 1,994 listings that show pay, describes itself as an AI-driven aggregator of postings found online. The data do not show whether its pay figures are the employers' own.
- How has_salary_text is filled is not visible in the export. The meaning is taken from the field name.
- The LinkedIn-heavy mix of some region groups follows Hired Creative's own choice of feeds. The LinkedIn feeds for MENA, Africa, Asia and Latin America use a different keyword list from the US and Europe feeds, but LinkedIn listings show almost no pay in any region, so that cannot create the gaps reported here.
- Regions come from a coarse field, not from country. Local rules on pay could not be tested. MENA has 49 and Africa 31 listings in pay-showing sources, so only the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific can be compared inside sources, and the Asia-Pacific cell mixes several sources.
- Companies are matched by name, and the same posting can appear in more than one source. Removing duplicate company and title pairs leaves the pattern unchanged: 8.7% of listings show pay, and the top three sources hold 78.4% of the pay shown.
- The Americas and Europe difference inside sources rests on a small number of employers. Law, employer choice and how each board fills its region field are all possible causes. None is tested.
- Indeed Hiring Lab reports the share of European postings on Indeed that carry pay in March 2026, from 12% in Germany to 56% in the United Kingdom. That base is Indeed postings and cannot be compared with these listings.
- This is a snapshot. Roles that show pay may stay live for a different time than others, and the data do not show whether they do.
Sources
- Ashby, Public Job Posting API
- Greenhouse, Job Board API
- Lever, Postings API on GitHub
- Remote Rocketship, worldwide remote jobs page
- Indeed Hiring Lab, salary transparency in Europe (UK blog, 2026-05-07)
- Hired Creative listings export, 2026-10-14 (21,617 listings).