The PayGapCheck Report
PayGapCheck doesn't aggregate away the problem. It shows you exactly where gaps exist, at what level, and what it would cost to close them. From executive summary to individual priority flags.
What's inside
Your report is structured as six analytical modules — from the boardroom signal to the individual action list. Each layer tells a different part of the story, for a different audience.
You receive a live interactive web report — a private URL with hover tooltips, collapsible AI analysis, and section navigation. And a Pay Equity Excel file with every flagged employee by ID, ready to action in your HRIS. A PDF is included for archiving.
Each module serves a different audience and answers a different question. Scroll down to explore each one in detail.
Your Action File
Every flagged employee with their own ID — the same ID you use in your HR system. Deviation, cohort context, action priority, and plain-language reasoning. Open it. Filter it. Act on it. No reformatting needed.
| Employee ID | Function | Level | Gender | Peer Median | Pay Gap | Action | Why Flagged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMP-0847 | IT Operations | Senior | Woman | €74,200 | −23.4% | ⚠ Critical | |
| EMP-1203 | Finance | Senior | Woman | €68,400 | −19.1% | ⚠ Critical | |
| EMP-0391 | Product | Medior | Woman | €54,100 | −14.7% | → Priority | |
| EMP-2156 | Engineering | Lead | Woman | €92,800 | −11.2% | → Priority | |
| + 118 more employees in the full file (Critical, Priority, Review) | |||||||
What the board needs before opening a single chart. Internal Equity Score, gap decomposition, function-level overview, and the cost corridor. One page. Boardroom-ready.
The CHRO's diagnostic layer. Pipeline erosion by level, quartile distribution, pay progression trajectories, salary band spread, and manager pay premium differentials. Five dimensions of the same problem.
36pp gap between Q1 and Q4 female representation.
Tenure × pay deviation. Compensation architecture by function and level. Six-dimension equity radar. Bonus and variable pay gap. Every analytical dimension the data supports.
| Function | Junior | Medior | Senior | Lead | TL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Software Dev | €36k | €52k | €74k | €103k | €114k |
| Sales | — | €61k | €81k | — | €145k |
| Finance | — | — | €66k | — | — |
| HR & People | — | €43k | €57k | — | — |
Female employees cluster below cohort median. Male at or above.
The temporal and rewards layer. Hiring trajectory by vintage year. Career velocity — how long each gender waits at the same level. Benefits access gap. Compounded risk profiles: three structural patterns invisible to standard pay analysis.
Every metric required by EU Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970 Article 9(1)(a)–(g). Organisation-level summary and per-function detail. Mandatory for ≥100 FTE from 2027. Ready to submit.
Art. 9 gap ≥5% triggers joint pay assessment obligation. Current gap: 14.8%.
Cross-layer action intelligence. All cases requiring attention — not just gender pay gap, but retention risk, career stagnation, benefits exclusion, and structural dysfunction. The full picture. Act now.
Six modules. One organisation.
Fully mapped.
How the report reads
Your report is built to be read at three levels of resolution — from the boardroom signal to the individual action list.
Every analytical section includes an AI-generated contextual commentary — grounded in your actual data. Not generic text. Not templates. Specific observations, derived from your specific numbers.
Gap Typology
PayGapCheck classifies your gap into one of three typologies — because the right action depends on what's driving the number, not just the number itself.
Men and women in the same roles at the same level are paid differently. Gap exists within cohorts, not just across them. Requires direct pay review.
Within-cohort pay is broadly equitable, but women are over-represented in lower-level or lower-paid functions. A structural representation issue, not a direct pay issue.
Overall gap is modest, but one or two specific cohorts show significant divergence. Targeted review is sufficient — no need for company-wide action.
Built for every reader
Every executive comes to a pay equity report with a different question. PayGapCheck is built so each of them gets their answer — without reading chapters that aren't theirs.
Your report opens with a single Internal Equity Score — one number that tells you whether to act. Below it: a directional cost corridor, low to high, for the board conversation. And an AI-generated brief that frames what the data actually shows — without legal language, without activist framing. Clear enough to present. Defensible enough to stand behind.
The gap decomposition splits your total gap into explained structural factors and an unexplained residual — the figure that matters under Article 9. If the residual exceeds 5%, you have a mandatory joint pay assessment obligation. The cost corridor gives you a directional estimate, not a legal figure — but enough for a risk committee or an audit conversation.
This is the layer the report is built for. Pipeline erosion by level. Quartile distribution. Career velocity gaps. Benefits access inequality. Every structural pattern across your organisation — mapped simultaneously. You'll know which functions to prioritise, which patterns are structural versus distributional, and exactly which individuals need review. The Excel file goes directly to your HRIS.
Module E maps every metric required by EU PTD 2023/970 Article 9(1)(a)–(g) — at organisation level and per function. You'll see exactly where your gaps sit against the 5% threshold, which cohorts require documented justification, and what your position is across all seven mandatory indicators. Structured for submission. Not for internal awareness.
Ready to see your numbers?
Upload your data. Your report arrives in minutes. No account required.