2026 Training Cost Benchmarks
ATD State of the Industry anchors, year-over-year trend, industry and company-size segmentation, derived per-hour math. The complete benchmark reference for 2026 L&D budget planning.
Sources: td.org ATD 2026 SOIR announcement; ATD 2025 SOIR press release. Use these as the headline anchors for 2026 budget conversations.
Year-over-Year ATD Trend
| ATD Report Year | Data Reporting Year | Direct Spend / Employee | Hours Used / Employee | Cost per Hour |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATD 2026 SOIR | 2025 data | $846 | 16.7 hrs | Not in free release |
| ATD 2025 SOIR | 2024 data | $1,254 | 13.7 hrs | $165 |
| ATD 2024 SOIR | 2023 data | $1,283 | 17.4 hrs | $123 |
| YoY change | 2024 → 2025 | -33 percent | +22 percent | n/a |
Source: ATD 2024, 2025, and 2026 State of the Industry releases. Per-employee figures for 2024 use the full-report value ($1,254); ATD's 2025 press release printed $1,054 in error. Year-over-year context for 2026 budget planning.
Reading the Year-over-Year Pattern
The headline year-over-year story flipped between editions. In 2024, spend held nearly flat ($1,283 to $1,254) while hours used fell 21 percent and cost per learning hour rose 34 percent to $165: fewer, more expensive hours. In 2025 the pattern reversed: per-employee spend fell 33 percent to $846 while hours used rose 22 percent to 16.7, implying a much lower unit cost (ATD's free release does not state the 2025 cost-per-hour figure). Explanations co-exist: cheaper per-seat content libraries and AI-assisted content development displacing high-cost custom builds; budget pressure squeezing dollar spend while self-serve digital formats keep hours up; and sample composition, since ATD surveyed 340 organizations for the 2026 edition against 539 the year before.
For 2026 budget planning the swing argues against simply matching the industry-average number. If your organisation is getting more hours for fewer dollars, verify the hours are still driving Kirkpatrick Level 2-4 outcomes rather than just logging cheap library completions. If your unit cost still sits near the 2024-era $165 per hour, you are now paying well above the direction the market moved.
The honest interpretation: ATD anchors are diagnostic, not prescriptive. They surface industry-aggregate behaviour. Whether that behaviour is right for your organisation depends on strategic priorities (technical upskilling intensity, leadership pipeline depth, compliance burden, M&A integration cycles), which the aggregate doesn’t see. Use ATD as anchor context; let strategic priorities drive your number.
For broader benchmark context see benchmarks. For the indirect-cost framing that the ATD direct-only figures don’t include see calculator methodology.
Segmentation: What Average Hides
The $846 per-employee headline (2025 data) is an industry average. Underneath, segmentation by industry and company size moves the figure substantially.
By industry: technology, financial services, and consulting consistently sit above average ($1,500 to $3,000+ per employee) reflecting high baseline skill requirements and rapid technology change. Healthcare and pharmaceutical sit at or above average due to compliance training intensity. Retail, hospitality, and food-service typically sit below average ($400 to $800 per employee) due to large frontline-employee populations with lower per-role training intensity. Government and education spend varies enormously by funded program scope.
By company size: SMB (under 500 employees) reports per-employee spend above average due to fixed-cost amortisation challenges (LMS minimums, facilitator fees, content development). Mid-market (500 to 5,000) sits near average. Large enterprise (5,000+) sits below average due to amortisation leverage. Fortune 500 with sophisticated L&D functions sometimes invest significantly more in specific high-value programs (executive pipelines, leadership cohorts) which raises absolute spend even though per-employee average stays moderate.
For SMB detail see small business training cost. For enterprise detail see enterprise training cost.
Brandon Hall, LinkedIn, and Training Magazine Complementary Data
ATD is the most-cited benchmark but not the only one. Brandon Hall Group HCM benchmarking surveys, the LinkedIn Workplace Learning Report (published annually), and Training Magazine’s Industry Report all provide complementary data points for 2026 planning.
The LinkedIn 2025 Workplace Learning Report (published Q1 2025) surveys L&D leaders on priorities, budget pressure, AI adoption in learning, and skills-based talent strategies. It’s the best source for understanding what L&D teams are buying with the budget the ATD figures describe.
Training Magazine’s annual Industry Report provides company-by-company examples of large-organisation L&D spend, often with disclosed absolute dollar figures for the Training Top 125 award winners. This is useful for benchmarking your investment intensity against named peer organisations rather than against industry aggregates.
Brandon Hall HCM benchmarking adds depth on specific program categories (leadership development, onboarding, technical training) with per-employee spend ranges by program. Useful for budget-allocation discussions when you’re trying to argue for a specific program investment within an overall L&D budget envelope.
For the methodology and source-discipline behind these benchmark figures see methodology.