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.
Source: td.org 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 2025 SOIR | 2024 data | $1,054 | 13.7 hrs | $165 |
| ATD 2024 SOIR | 2023 data | $1,283 | 17.4 hrs | $123 |
| YoY change | 2023 → 2024 | -18 percent | -21 percent | +34 percent |
Source: ATD 2024 and 2025 State of the Industry press releases. Year-over-year context for 2026 budget planning.
Reading the Year-over-Year Pattern
The headline year-over-year story is striking: per-employee direct spend fell 18 percent and hours used fell 21 percent, but cost per learning hour used rose 34 percent. The pattern suggests organisations are buying fewer but higher-quality (or higher-unit-cost) learning hours. Multiple explanations co-exist: a shift toward shorter, more deliberate learning formats; tighter L&D budgets squeezing total hours faster than total spend; rising vendor-pricing in the LMS and content-library market; and stronger investment in higher-cost programs (executive coaching, executive education) at the expense of broader long-form eLearning.
For 2026 budget planning the pattern argues against simply matching last year’s number. If your organisation has cut total learning hours but per-hour cost is rising, you may be inadvertently shifting toward expensive selective programs while losing the broad-access development that drives Kirkpatrick Level 2 outcomes. Conversely if you’ve held hours but unit cost is rising, you may be paying for unnecessary platform sophistication.
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 $1,054 per-employee headline 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.