Fact check: How do Walmart's 2025 health insurance premiums and employee out-of-pocket costs compare to Amazon and Target in 2025?

1. What the documents actually claim — a reality check that cuts through assumption

The documents supplied make separate, company‑specific disclosures rather than a consolidated comparison. The Walmart file lists biweekly employee contribution rates across plan tiers and differentiates tobacco‑user versus tobacco‑free pricing and optional vision and dental costs, which yields concrete employee premium figures for Walmart in 2025 ^[1]. The Amazon file provides weekly and monthly paycheck deduction amounts for multiple plan options and coverage levels for 2025, giving a clear picture of Amazon’s charged premiums to employees ^[2]. The third document is a generic Summary of Benefits and Coverage that outlines plan design features like deductibles, copays, and coinsurance but does not attribute those numbers to a specific employer or provide premium schedules ^[3]. This means the dataset supports firm, source‑bound statements about each document’s contents but not an intercompany comparison.

2. Why you cannot derive a true employer comparison from these files — data and methodology gaps

A valid comparison of premiums and out‑of‑pocket costs requires standardized metrics and alignment on plan types, pay cadence, family composition, and benefit design—none of which are consistently harmonized across the provided files. Walmart quotes biweekly contribution rates and breaks out tobacco status and optional plans, while Amazon uses weekly and monthly paycheck deductions across its listed plans, and the Summary of Benefits provides clinical cost‑sharing elements without employer‑specific premium levels ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Differences in plan actuarial value, network breadth, deductible structure, and how employer subsidies are applied mean headline premium figures alone do not capture total employee financial exposure. Absent matched plan templates and identical employee scenarios, any cross‑company ranking would be speculative.

3. What Walmart’s 2025 documentation actually shows — numbers you can rely on

Walmart’s 2025 benefits rate document supplies biweekly employee cost figures for its health plans and explicitly distinguishes tobacco‑user versus tobacco‑free pricing, plus costs for vision and dental coverage, enabling calculation of monthly employee premiums and add‑on product costs for defined coverage tiers ^[1]. Because the file is granular about pay‑period rates and optional benefits, an analyst can compute employee yearly premium outlays for specific enrollment scenarios within Walmart. However, the file does not translate those premiums into total expected annual out‑of‑pocket exposure under different utilization patterns, nor does it present comparative data versus other employers, which limits cross‑employer inferences. Thus, Walmart’s employee contributions for 2025 are documentable, but total employee cost risk requires further utilization and benefit‑design inputs.

4. What Amazon’s 2025 documentation actually shows — how to interpret paycheck deductions

Amazon’s 2025 health plan rates list weekly and monthly paycheck deductions for different plan tiers and coverage levels, giving clear nominal premium charges employees will see taken from paychecks for 2025 ^[2]. These figures are precise for payroll deduction purposes and allow direct calculation of employee monthly premiums under Amazon plans. The Amazon file does not, however, provide a full picture of out‑of‑pocket liability such as plan deductibles, coinsurance maximums, or how plan design shifts cost between premiums and care expenses—elements necessary to determine which employer actually yields lower total employee spending. Consequently, Amazon’s payroll deduction schedule is certain; its implication for total employee cost is not, without plan‑design alignment.

5. The conspicuous absence of Target’s 2025 premium/out‑of‑pocket data and what that means

The Summary of Benefits and Coverage offered in the dataset outlines deductibles, copays, and coinsurance for a plan but does not specify it as Target’s employer plan nor include Target premium schedules that would allow side‑by‑side comparison ^[3]. Without a Target‑labeled premium rate sheet or employer communication, it is impossible to state Target’s 2025 employee premiums or expected out‑of‑pocket liabilities with confidence. This omission creates an asymmetric evidence base: two employers (Walmart and Amazon) have payroll contribution documents present, while Target’s comparable pricing data is missing. Any definitive ranking that places Target relative to Walmart and Amazon on 2025 employee costs would therefore lack evidentiary support.

6. Bottom line and next steps — how to get a defensible comparison

To produce an authoritative, apples‑to‑apples comparison of 2025 premiums and employee out‑of‑pocket costs, obtain each employer’s 2025 benefit rate sheets and the matching Summary of Benefits and Coverage for identical plan types and representative enrollee scenarios (employee only, employee + spouse, family). Align metrics by pay period, plan actuarial value, deductible/out‑of‑pocket maximums, and expected utilization assumptions, then compute total expected annual employee payments. Given the current documents, you can state Walmart and Amazon’s 2025 payroll deduction figures with confidence ^{[1] [2]}, but you cannot accurately place Target or conclude which employer imposes higher total employee costs without the missing Target premium schedule and aligned plan templates ^[3].