Employer rankings: how to get in and what it gives
What really gets influenced by making the ranking
The main myth is that the ranking only works on image and a pretty line in a presentation for investors. In practice, the effect is measured in metrics that HR directors bring to the CFO to defend the budget.
According to hh.ru data, 45% of job seekers more often respond to vacancies of ranking finalists, and 51% say they trust such companies more than employers without status. This is a direct impact on the top of the hiring funnel — not just the number of responses increases, but the share of targeted candidates who are initially oriented toward dialogue, not just 'dumped their resumes on everything'.
- Cost-per-hire decreases — less needs to be spent on paid promotion of vacancies, because part of the traffic comes organically, due to brand recognition from the ranking.
- Quality-of-hire increases — candidates come with a more conscious choice, knowing about the company's EVP and working conditions, not at random.
- The time frame for closing vacancies is being shortened—this is especially noticeable for mass and linear positions, where the decision on which employer to choose is made quickly, often based on reputation.
Indirect confirmation of the benefit is the behavior of the companies themselves. Two out of three companies that participated in the hh.ru ranking submit applications for the following year. If the effect were purely image-related and did not reflect on hiring, there would be many fewer repeat applications — HR budgets count money, not beautiful diplomas on the wall.
What to do if you did not make it into the ranking or want to climb higher
Position in the ranking is not a lottery, but a sum of specific, measurable indicators. If a company did not pass the selection or got stuck in the middle of the list, the issue needs to be analyzed based on metrics, not on general feelings like 'everything's not bad' here.
- Check EVP. According to BrandLab data, 70% of the largest employers in Russia do not have a clearly formulated EVP (employee value proposition), although this is one of the key factors in the HR brand quality index. If a company does not have a clear answer to the question 'why should one work here,' the rating will immediately record this with a low score.
- Raise eNPS. Employee loyalty index — the foundation of the methodology of most rankings. Point surveys once per quarter with real actions based on the results, rather than a one-time measurement before submitting an application.
- Working with reviews from former employees. This is a separate data source that weighs no less than an internal survey. A company that ignores negative reviews instead of responding and resolving the issue loses points consistently.
- Use benchmarks. Rating participants receive a free report with general market benchmarks — a comparison of their indicators with the industry. This is ready-made material for an internal improvement project: there is no need to order a separate study to understand where the company is weaker than its competitors.
- Order an extended report. For an additional fee, rating organizers provide a detailed breakdown of errors — specifically, which questionnaire and survey items the company missed points on. This report is convenient to bring to management as justification for the HR brand budget: not an abstract 'we need more money for the brand,' but 'here are three specific problems, and here is how much it costs to fix them.'
Which rating to choose: differences in methodology
Employer ratings in Russia are calculated differently, and the choice depends on what task the company is trying to solve — closing mass vacancies in regions or strengthening its position before investors and top managers.
| Rating | Methodology | Who it suits |
|---|---|---|
| hh.ru | eNPS of current employees, feedback from former employees, candidate voting. In 2025 year, 421 thousand people participated in the survey, 129 thousand reviews from former employees, and 692 thousand candidate votes | Companies with mass and linear hiring, regional business — 1792 finalists from 69 regions and 41 industries allow them to compete for niche top rankings, even without entering the general one |
| Forbes | Expert evaluation + surveys, division into statuses Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze. In 2025 year, 205 companies entered the rating against 168 in 2024 — criteria are becoming stricter | Large business, for which status before investors and the board of directors is important |
| RBK | A combination of financial and reputational indicators, expert interviews | Companies that need weight in the business environment, not just in hiring |
| Specialized (by industry, region) | Narrow methodology for a specific segment — IT, manufacturing, retail | Niche players who find it difficult to compete in the general ranking with federal brands |
The mistake of many companies is to submit an application only to one rating 'for the sake of it.' In practice, the HR effect is composed of the overall presence: being included in an industry rating strengthens the position in the general one, because the PR department can refer to several confirmations of status at once when communicating with candidates.
Manipulation with reviews and reputational risks
Where there is a rating, there is also the temptation to manipulate it. Practice shows several typical schemes — and all of them are exposed relatively quickly, because organizers of major ratings already know how to filter them.
- Massive inflation of positive reviews from current employees under management pressure — easily recognizable by patterns: identical formulations, a surge in activity over a short period of time.
- Ignoring negative reviews instead of providing a public response — is perceived worse by candidates than the negative review itself.
- Targeted work only with top management during eNPS surveys, without accounting for frontline staff — distorts the picture and creates a gap between the stated position and the real employee experience at the entry point.
The reputational risk here is double. If manipulation is exposed — the company loses not only its position in the rating, but also the trust of job seekers for a long time: information about 'fabricated' results spreads faster in professional communities than the rating itself is published. The second risk is the status of 'eternal leader.' A company that has ranked first for three consecutive years begins to be perceived as affiliated with the organizer, rather than as an objective winner. After three consecutive wins, according to hh.ru rating rules, the company is excluded from the next season to give other participants a chance to compete for leading positions. For example, Alfa-Bank will not participate in the new season after its three consecutive victories — this rule is aimed at preserving trust in the rating methodology.
What is an employer rating and why does it exist
Employer rating is an annual public list of companies sorted by a set of indicators: employee loyalty, reviews, recognition among job seekers, and sometimes — financial and ESG indicators. Such lists are compiled by large job-search platforms, business media, and specialized consulting agencies.
Formally, the purpose of the ranking is to give applicants a reference for whom to trust when choosing an employer, when there is no direct work experience with the company. In practice, the ranking solves a second, no less important task — it provides the company itself with structured data on the state of its HR brand, which is difficult to obtain by other means: comparison with competitors in the industry, breakdown by regions, and detailed analysis of weak points.
How ratings have changed in 2025–2026 years
The methodologies of the last two years have become significantly more complex compared to what is described in most articles in the search results. In addition to classic eNPS and reviews, ESG indicators are increasingly being incorporated into the evaluation — companies are now assessed not only as employers but also as socially responsible market players. Elements of predictive analytics are appearing: organizers are trying not just to capture the current state of the brand, but also to forecast its dynamics — in which direction the company is moving in terms of engagement and employee turnover indicators.
The tightening is evident even in the numbers: if in 2024 year 168 companies made it into Forbes status, then in 2025 — already 205, with a more stringent selection process. This means that the entry threshold is rising, and competition for positions is becoming fiercer even within a single status. For an HR director, this is a signal: a one-time preparation for the ranking once a year no longer works, a constant monitoring system for eNPS and working with reviews is needed — otherwise, the position will decline year after year simply due to rising competition, not due to a real decline in brand quality.
According to hh.ru data, 45% of job seekers more often respond to vacancies of ranking finalists, and 51% say they trust such companies more than employers without status. This is a direct impact on the top of the hiring funnel — not just the number of responses increases, but the share of targeted candidates who are initially oriented toward dialogue, not just 'dumped their resumes on everything'.
- Cost-per-hire decreases — less needs to be spent on paid promotion of vacancies, because part of the traffic comes organically, due to brand recognition from the ranking.
- Quality-of-hire increases — candidates come with a more conscious choice, knowing about the company's EVP and working conditions, not at random.
- The time frame for closing vacancies is being shortened—this is especially noticeable for mass and linear positions, where the decision on which employer to choose is made quickly, often based on reputation.
Indirect confirmation of the benefit is the behavior of the companies themselves. Two out of three companies that participated in the hh.ru ranking submit applications for the following year. If the effect were purely image-related and did not reflect on hiring, there would be many fewer repeat applications — HR budgets count money, not beautiful diplomas on the wall.
What to do if you did not make it into the ranking or want to climb higher
Position in the ranking is not a lottery, but a sum of specific, measurable indicators. If a company did not pass the selection or got stuck in the middle of the list, the issue needs to be analyzed based on metrics, not on general feelings like 'everything's not bad' here.
- Check EVP. According to BrandLab data, 70% of the largest employers in Russia do not have a clearly formulated EVP (employee value proposition), although this is one of the key factors in the HR brand quality index. If a company does not have a clear answer to the question 'why should one work here,' the rating will immediately record this with a low score.
- Raise eNPS. Employee loyalty index — the foundation of the methodology of most rankings. Point surveys once per quarter with real actions based on the results, rather than a one-time measurement before submitting an application.
- Working with reviews from former employees. This is a separate data source that weighs no less than an internal survey. A company that ignores negative reviews instead of responding and resolving the issue loses points consistently.
- Use benchmarks. Rating participants receive a free report with general market benchmarks — a comparison of their indicators with the industry. This is ready-made material for an internal improvement project: there is no need to order a separate study to understand where the company is weaker than its competitors.
- Order an extended report. For an additional fee, rating organizers provide a detailed breakdown of errors — specifically, which questionnaire and survey items the company missed points on. This report is convenient to bring to management as justification for the HR brand budget: not an abstract 'we need more money for the brand,' but 'here are three specific problems, and here is how much it costs to fix them.'
Which rating to choose: differences in methodology
Employer ratings in Russia are calculated differently, and the choice depends on what task the company is trying to solve — closing mass vacancies in regions or strengthening its position before investors and top managers.
| Rating | Methodology | Who it suits |
|---|---|---|
| hh.ru | eNPS of current employees, feedback from former employees, candidate voting. In 2025 year, 421 thousand people participated in the survey, 129 thousand reviews from former employees, and 692 thousand candidate votes | Companies with mass and linear hiring, regional business — 1792 finalists from 69 regions and 41 industries allow them to compete for niche top rankings, even without entering the general one |
| Forbes | Expert evaluation + surveys, division into statuses Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze. In 2025 year, 205 companies entered the rating against 168 in 2024 — criteria are becoming stricter | Large business, for which status before investors and the board of directors is important |
| RBK | A combination of financial and reputational indicators, expert interviews | Companies that need weight in the business environment, not just in hiring |
| Specialized (by industry, region) | Narrow methodology for a specific segment — IT, manufacturing, retail | Niche players who find it difficult to compete in the general ranking with federal brands |
The mistake of many companies is to submit an application only to one rating 'for the sake of it.' In practice, the HR effect is composed of the overall presence: being included in an industry rating strengthens the position in the general one, because the PR department can refer to several confirmations of status at once when communicating with candidates.
Manipulation with reviews and reputational risks
Where there is a rating, there is also the temptation to manipulate it. Practice shows several typical schemes — and all of them are exposed relatively quickly, because organizers of major ratings already know how to filter them.
- Massive inflation of positive reviews from current employees under management pressure — easily recognizable by patterns: identical formulations, a surge in activity over a short period of time.
- Ignoring negative reviews instead of providing a public response — is perceived worse by candidates than the negative review itself.
- Targeted work only with top management during eNPS surveys, without accounting for frontline staff — distorts the picture and creates a gap between the stated position and the real employee experience at the entry point.
The reputational risk here is double. If manipulation is exposed — the company loses not only its position in the rating, but also the trust of job seekers for a long time: information about 'fabricated' results spreads faster in professional communities than the rating itself is published. The second risk is the status of 'eternal leader.' A company that has ranked first for three consecutive years begins to be perceived as affiliated with the organizer, rather than as an objective winner. After three consecutive wins, according to hh.ru rating rules, the company is excluded from the next season to give other participants a chance to compete for leading positions. For example, Alfa-Bank will not participate in the new season after its three consecutive victories — this rule is aimed at preserving trust in the rating methodology.
What is an employer rating and why does it exist
Employer rating is an annual public list of companies sorted by a set of indicators: employee loyalty, reviews, recognition among job seekers, and sometimes — financial and ESG indicators. Such lists are compiled by large job-search platforms, business media, and specialized consulting agencies.
Formally, the purpose of the ranking is to give applicants a reference for whom to trust when choosing an employer, when there is no direct work experience with the company. In practice, the ranking solves a second, no less important task — it provides the company itself with structured data on the state of its HR brand, which is difficult to obtain by other means: comparison with competitors in the industry, breakdown by regions, and detailed analysis of weak points.
How ratings have changed in 2025–2026 years
The methodologies of the last two years have become significantly more complex compared to what is described in most articles in the search results. In addition to classic eNPS and reviews, ESG indicators are increasingly being incorporated into the evaluation — companies are now assessed not only as employers but also as socially responsible market players. Elements of predictive analytics are appearing: organizers are trying not just to capture the current state of the brand, but also to forecast its dynamics — in which direction the company is moving in terms of engagement and employee turnover indicators.
The tightening is evident even in the numbers: if in 2024 year 168 companies made it into Forbes status, then in 2025 — already 205, with a more stringent selection process. This means that the entry threshold is rising, and competition for positions is becoming fiercer even within a single status. For an HR director, this is a signal: a one-time preparation for the ranking once a year no longer works, a constant monitoring system for eNPS and working with reviews is needed — otherwise, the position will decline year after year simply due to rising competition, not due to a real decline in brand quality.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
