Cost to Post a Job on Indeed, LinkedIn, ZipRecruiter and Remote Job Boards in 2026

Posting a job on Indeed is free, and sponsoring it starts at roughly $5 a day. The free post is real, not a trial, though Indeed states it is subject to its terms, quality standards and usage limits, and some jobs are sponsored-only, including roles pulled in from a career site, data feed or ATS integration. What you cannot buy for free is placement. An unsponsored post surfaces briefly in the feed, then sinks as newer listings arrive, and for anything other than a high-volume hourly role it usually goes quiet within a couple of days.

Sponsored posts run on an auction. You set a daily or monthly budget, and Indeed charges when candidates engage with the listing. Reported click costs span roughly $0.10 to more than $5, which is a wide enough band that the same $500 budget can buy a full search for a warehouse role or a few dozen clicks for a senior engineer. Competitive metros and specialized titles sit at the top of that range.

The practical consequence: Indeed is the cheapest place to test whether a role attracts anyone, and one of the least predictable places to actually fill it. If you need a fixed number on the budget line before you commit, an auction is the wrong instrument. Employers who reach that conclusion usually want to know what to use instead, which we cover board by board in Indeed alternatives for employers.

Three details have changed recently enough that most published figures miss them. Indeed now sells two sponsored tiers rather than one, Standard and Premium, and does not publish a separate price for Premium. The billable event depends on your budget type: a daily budget is charged when a candidate clicks to view the post, a monthly budget when a candidate clicks to apply. And the $5 a day figure is the self-serve floor only. Campaign and programmatic posting carries a $25 per day minimum per job, raised from $10 effective 1 July 2025 and enforced across all campaigns from 8 July that year, so a feed of ten roles needs ten separate minimums rather than one shared budget.

The number that explains rising invoices is not on any Indeed page. Indeed's parent, Recruit Holdings, discloses average revenue per job in the US: up 17% in the year to March 2026, up 25% in that year's final quarter, and guided up a further 18% for the year ending March 2027 on the back of "further growth of Premium Sponsored Jobs". Published minimums have held steady while revenue per posting climbs by design. The full breakdown, including the free tier rules and how to read a Sponsored Jobs invoice, is on our Indeed job posting cost page.

One line has quietly left this comparison. Glassdoor used to sell job slots on its own rate card; it no longer does. Glassdoor LLC merged into Indeed, Inc. on 1 July 2026, its employer pricing and job-slots pages now return 404, and its post-job page hands employers to Indeed. A job reaches Glassdoor by being a paid Indeed listing, which means the Glassdoor line in any older price comparison should be read as an Indeed line. What that leaves an employer able to buy, and at what price, is set out on post a job on Glassdoor.

LinkedIn has three prices: $0 for a standard post, about $7 a day to promote one, and roughly $200 a month per Job Slot for the recruiter-side plans. The free listing works the same way Indeed's does. It exists, it is visible to people who search for it, and it does not get pushed to anyone. It also stops: LinkedIn documents a free application limit of typically 10 to 30 applications, after which the post is paused and pulled from search, and the mechanics are set out in full in LinkedIn job posting cost.

Promoted posts are budget-based rather than per-click in the way employers usually experience them: you set a daily amount, LinkedIn spends it distributing the role, and you can stop at any point. The $7 a day floor is a floor, not a typical spend. A senior or niche role in a major market generally needs a multiple of that to generate a usable shortlist.

Job Slots are the option that changes the math for anyone hiring more than occasionally. A slot is a reusable posting position, so a company filling six roles a year pays for the slot rather than for six separate campaigns. Below about three or four hires a year, slots are usually more expensive than promoting individual posts.

ZipRecruiter charges a flat monthly subscription per job slot, reported at roughly $299 a month at the entry tier and up to about $899 a month at the top. ZipRecruiter does not publish a public rate card, so those numbers come from third-party pricing trackers and employer reports rather than from the company, and your quote depends on slot count and contract length.

The model is the opposite of Indeed's. Your bill is the same whether the listing draws four applicants or four hundred, which makes it easy to budget and expensive if the role fills in a week. ZipRecruiter also pushes listings out to a distribution network and does a lot of active candidate matching, which is where most of the value sits: it behaves more like a sourcing tool than a noticeboard.

It is a reasonable choice for a company hiring continuously in general-market roles. For a single specialized hire, paying a month of subscription for one listing is usually the most expensive option on this page.

Dice charges $399 for a single job slot that stays live for 30 days, and its slot plans run $649 a month for three slots or $899 a month for five, with lower rates on an annual contract. Those are Dice's own published prices, read on 25 September 2026. The number worth knowing is what customers actually spend: DHI Group's Q2 2026 quarterly filing puts average annual revenue per Dice recruitment package customer at $15,899, about $1,325 a month, because the packages Dice sells combine job postings with access to its resume database. We break that down, plan by plan, on the Dice pricing page for employers.

Free postings work when demand already exists and fail when it has to be created. If you are hiring for a role with a deep local applicant pool, a free Indeed or LinkedIn listing frequently fills it, and paying would have been waste. If you are hiring for something specific, senior, or genuinely remote, the free listing tends to produce volume without relevance: applications arrive, but from people who found the post by scrolling rather than by looking for it.

The cost of a free posting is rarely zero once you count screening. A listing that draws 300 unsorted applications for a role that needed 15 qualified ones has spent real hours of someone's week. That time is a cost even though nothing appears on an invoice, and it is the single most common thing missing from an employer's idea of what a hire cost them.

Note that the free option is narrowing. Indeed and LinkedIn still have free tiers, both capped, but Monster no longer publishes one at all: its current pricing page starts at $8 a day, so there is no zero-cost way to test it, as the breakdown of Monster job posting cost sets out.

A useful rule: post free first for a week on the general boards. If the applications are close to the role, you are done and you saved the fee. If they are not, the problem is reach or targeting, and that is what you should pay to fix.

Work it out with one number: how many qualified applicants do you need, and what does each one cost on each model. On a $199 a month listing, ten qualified applicants cost $19.90 each and forty cost $4.98 each. On an auction, cost per applicant is roughly fixed, so it scales linearly and a longer search costs proportionally more.

That gives a clean decision rule. Flat fees win when the role is specific enough that a targeted audience beats a large one, and when the search may run several weeks. Auctions win when the audience is broad, the role is easy to fill, and you expect to stop within days. The break-even usually sits around the point where you would have spent $250 to $300 on clicks, which for most professional roles is one to three weeks of modest sponsorship.

Remote roles skew the answer toward flat fees, and not because of the price. A general board sends you applicants who will take a remote job; a remote board sends you applicants who are specifically looking for one and have already sorted themselves out of hybrid and on-site listings. For a fully-remote role the flat fee buys relevance, which is the expensive part.

Craigslist is the one flat fee that works against remote roles. It charges $10 to $75 per post, but per area: a "telecommuting ok" post still appears only in the city you bought, so reaching the 15 priciest US metros costs $705 for a single 30 day run. We read the fee in all 413 US areas, and the full table with a calculator is on Craigslist job posting cost.

The posting fee is usually the smallest line in the total. Published US benchmarks put cost per hire in the thousands: SHRM's own most-quoted figure is roughly $4,700 per hire, its older published benchmarking report put it at $4,129, and third parties citing SHRM's 2025 benchmarking data report $5,475 for non-executive roles and $35,879 for executive ones. The spread between those numbers is itself informative, and the reason is that most of the cost is internal time, which organizations count inconsistently or not at all.

Against a figure in that range, the difference between a $0 posting and a $199 a month posting is noise. The variable that actually moves the total is how many hours your team spends screening and interviewing to reach a hire, and that is driven by applicant relevance, not by posting price. A cheaper listing that triples your screening load is the more expensive option.

If the shortlist has come down to the two largest platforms, the head to head is in Indeed vs LinkedIn for employers, including the posting channel that quietly multiplies the Indeed floor by five. We break the arithmetic down in how to calculate cost per hire, and the ongoing employment cost, which is a separate and much larger number, on cost of hiring an employee: about 1.31 times base salary for a US salaried hire once 2026 payroll taxes and the BLS benefits load are counted, with the remote-specific extras in what it costs to hire a remote employee. The cost of getting the hire wrong, which is the one nobody budgets, is worked through in cost of a bad hire.