Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does Walmart's entry-level pay compare to competitors like Target and Amazon?
Executive Summary
Walmart’s commonly reported entry‑level cash wage sits lower than rival large retailers, but the picture varies by source, geography, role and whether total compensation (benefits and bonuses) is counted. Contemporary reporting and labor research show Walmart cited starting rates around $11 an hour in several accounts, with some locations and roles paying higher, while Target and Amazon have publicly pushed starting pay toward $13–$15 an hour or more, and some analyses show average hourly figures for Walmart closer to the mid‑teens once benefits are factored in [1] [2] [3]. The competing claims reflect different measurement choices—base starting wage, tested local increases, average hourly pay for current employees, and claimed total compensation—so a single headline number obscures meaningful variation across employers and time [4] [5] [6].
1. What employers say vs. what studies count: a numbers tug‑of‑war
Media and company announcements often report headline starting wages—Amazon’s $15 floor since 2018, Target’s move from $13 toward $15, and Walmart’s frequently cited $11 starting rate—and those figures drive public comparisons [1] [7] [2]. Independent analyses and aggregator sites present a different perspective by reporting ranges, averages, or total compensation, which can raise Walmart’s figure substantially: one piece cites Walmart pay between $12 and $19 depending on location and role, while another emphasizes average hourly pay and total compensation pushing some averages above $15 for many employees [4] [5]. These divergent approaches create headline discrepancies: a company’s minimum advertised wage differs from what many incumbents actually earn once tenure, differential roles, and benefits are included [5] [4].
2. Role, location and pilot programs change the math dramatically
Retail pay varies by job function and local labor markets, and the sources underline that Walmart uses testers and regional adjustments—some stores piloted $12 or higher starting rates and e‑commerce roles often pay more—so the company’s entry‑level band is not uniform nationwide [7] [4]. Labor‑center research documents systemic effects too: studies show Walmart’s market entry can suppress local wages across competing employers, which complicates comparisons between Walmart and rivals in different markets [6]. The takeaway: comparing Walmart’s national minimum to Target’s or Amazon’s national floors misses the fact that many Walmart associates in higher‑cost markets or in logistics/tech‑adjacent roles earn well above the company’s published minimums, while others remain at lower starting points [2] [6].
3. Total compensation narratives: benefits and training enter the debate
Some sources emphasize total compensation—wages plus benefits and training—arguing Walmart’s package can narrow or flip apparent gaps with peers; one analysis reported average wage for full‑time field associates and a higher total compensation figure per hour for some Walmart employees [5]. Critics counter that benefits valuation is subjective and less liquid than hourly pay, and that comparing a claimed “total compensation” figure to a competitor’s flat hourly wage obscures take‑home pay and immediate cash needs. Corporate PR tends to highlight average pay gains and large raises (Walmart noted a raise affecting hundreds of thousands of employees increasing an average above $15), while competitors emphasize a simple, guaranteed minimum hourly wage as evidence of stronger baseline pay [2] [5].
4. Independent labor research and aggregator sites complicate simple rankings
Academic and labor‑center work finds that Walmart’s entry correlates with downward pressure on regional wages, and that Walmart’s average pay often sits below several peers when measured across comparable roles and demographics [6]. Aggregator sites and employer comparison pages produce yet another layer: they report Walmart’s average hourly pay near $15.20, Target around $16.94, and Costco higher still at $17.80, which supports the view that Walmart’s overall compensation averages lag most direct competitors even if pockets of higher pay exist [3]. These mixed datasets show that claims of “Walmart pays less” have empirical support in studies and averages, but also that company‑reported improvements and role‑based variations complicate a one‑line verdict [6] [3].
5. How to interpret the disagreement and what matters to jobseekers
For jobseekers, the most relevant facts are concrete and local: the advertised starting wage for a specific store or role, whether the employer guarantees a national minimum (Amazon does at $15), and what benefits, scheduling stability, and promotion pathways are offered. The sources collectively show Walmart frequently lists a lower national starting wage than Amazon and the most explicit Target commitments, yet many Walmart employees earn higher rates depending on role and location, and company statements highlight raises and improved averages [1] [2] [4]. Policymakers and researchers should treat comparisons carefully, distinguishing between headline minimums, tested local increases, average wages across incumbents, and the monetized value of benefits when drawing conclusions about competitiveness and worker welfare [5] [6].