2026 NPS benchmarks for 14 industries — median, good, excellent ranges. Plus eNPS benchmarks, response-rate benchmarks, and peer-set guidance.
Median, good, and excellent NPS ranges across 14 sectors — with eNPS benchmarks, response-rate benchmarks, and a free calculator that compares your score against the median for your industry.
Your NPS becomes useful the moment you put it next to the median for your industry. Enter promoter, passive, and detractor counts on the left, pick your sector, and the calculator returns your NPS, the 2026 median for your industry, the gap, and where you fall against the good and excellent thresholds.
Industry median
+30
Retail · 2026
Your gap
−10
vs median
Top decile
+55
Excellent threshold
Benchmark values are composite 2026 medians drawn from publicly cited Bain NPS Prism, SurveyMonkey, CustomerGauge, and ACSI-adjacent ranges. Use as directional context, not absolute comparison — see why benchmarks mislead below.
Compare against the median in your specific industry row first, not the cross-industry average. Then adjust for collection moment, sample size, and scale before treating any benchmark as a target. A score of +40 is excellent for healthcare, average for B2B SaaS, and below median for management consulting — context decides what good means.
Industry benchmarks are most useful when they answer one question: is our NPS meaningfully different from a typical organization in our sector? They are most misleading when they answer are we ahead of everyone? — because most published benchmarks pool incompatible methodologies. Six steps separate a defensible benchmark comparison from a board-deck guess.
The 2026 NPS median ranges from +8 in telecom and cable up to +45 in management consulting. The starred column shows the 2026 industry median — the single number to compare your score against first. Good (top quartile) and excellent (top decile) thresholds follow. The eNPS median is the employee-side equivalent for the same sector. The 2024 column is included for year-over-year trend reference.
| Industry | 2024 median | 2026 median | Good (top quartile) | Excellent (top decile) | eNPS 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B SaaS | +35 | +40 | +50 | +65 | +22 |
| Management Consulting | +42 | +45 | +55 | +70 | +30 |
| Technology & Software | +32 | +35 | +45 | +60 | +24 |
| Professional Services | +32 | +35 | +48 | +60 | +25 |
| E-commerce | +28 | +32 | +45 | +60 | +12 |
| Retail | +28 | +30 | +42 | +55 | +8 |
| Nonprofit & Mission | +28 | +30 | +42 | +60 | +28 |
| Financial Services | +22 | +25 | +38 | +50 | +14 |
| Education | +20 | +22 | +34 | +48 | +18 |
| Manufacturing | +20 | +22 | +34 | +48 | +12 |
| Healthcare | +18 | +20 | +32 | +45 | +10 |
| Hospitality & Travel | +14 | +18 | +32 | +50 | +5 |
| Insurance | +10 | +12 | +25 | +40 | +12 |
| Telecom & Cable | +6 | +8 | +20 | +35 | +6 |
Composite 2026 medians drawn from Bain NPS Prism, CustomerGauge B2B Benchmarks, SurveyMonkey global benchmarks, ACSI-adjacent data, and publicly cited sector-specific sources (Press Ganey for healthcare, ClearlyRated for professional services, Temkin Group for retail). Ranges are directional; verify against your specific source before reporting. Refresh annually.
Three patterns inside the table matter more than any single number. Consulting and SaaS sit at the top because both involve high-stakes, high-contact relationships where promoters and detractors form quickly. Telecom, cable, and insurance sit at the bottom because the category is structurally low-loyalty — switching costs are high but emotional attachment is low. The good and excellent thresholds widen as the median rises — the gap between "good" and "excellent" is 15 points in B2B SaaS but only 15 points in telecom, even though the absolute numbers are far apart.
For cross-industry queries — "what is a good NPS for SaaS", "average NPS for healthcare", "B2B NPS benchmarks", "retail NPS benchmark" — the reference table answers in one row each. For deeper comparison against named competitors, pair the median with a tight peer-set of 3–5 organizations you actually compete against and your own rolling trend. External benchmarks alone produce directional guidance; combined with internal trend, they produce decision-useful signal.
For employee NPS specifically, see eNPS benchmarks by industry below — the band thresholds and structural patterns differ from customer NPS in ways worth reading before you compare your employee score to anything published.
Most published NPS benchmarks mix incompatible survey methodologies, response bases, and collection moments — producing averages that are not directly comparable to your own score. Three structural mechanisms produce the distortion: scale contamination (1–5 scales converted to NPS), the aggregate illusion (transactional and relational scores pooled into one number), and sampling bias (invited-only respondents inflating the score). Read the source's methodology before treating any benchmark as a target.
A meaningful share of published NPS studies use 1–5 or 1–7 scales converted to NPS-equivalents through interpolation. These converted scores systematically overstate NPS relative to validated 0–10 collection because the converted-passive band is narrower. When an aggregator benchmark pools studies from survey tools that default to 5-point scales, the resulting average is not directly comparable to your 0–10 NPS program. The distortion runs about 10–15 points in the inflated direction.
Transactional NPS (sent within hours of a touchpoint) scores 10–20 points higher than relational NPS (sent quarterly or annually to the full customer base). Most published industry benchmarks pool both into a single median. If your program runs transactional and the benchmark is relational, you will appear to outperform the median by a margin that is methodology, not loyalty. Inverse if your program is relational against a transactional-heavy benchmark — you will appear to underperform when you are actually at par.
Invited-only NPS programs — where survey invitations go to customers selected for likelihood-to-respond — produce scores 8–15 points higher than open-population programs that survey the full base. The Charles Schwab case is the canonical example of the inverse: when the firm switched from email-only to a broader collection base in 2003, the headline NPS dropped to −35 not because loyalty fell but because the previously hidden detractor population became visible.
The defensible use of any external benchmark is directional. Pair it with two other signals: a tight peer-set comparison against 3–5 named competitors using a methodology you can document, and your own rolling trend with methodology held constant. The single most reliable comparison is internal: your NPS this quarter against your NPS last quarter, same scale, same collection window, same response base.
The NPS formula treats promoter and detractor percentages as the only signal; passives count toward the total but not the score.
NPS = %Promoters − %Detractors
Your current inputs: 42 promoters, 36 passives, 22 detractors. Total respondents 100.
Step 1 — Convert to percentages. %Promoters = 42.0%, %Detractors = 22.0%.
Step 2 — Subtract. 42.0% − 22.0% = +20.
Step 3 — Compare to the Retail 2026 median of +30. Your gap is −10. Above the good threshold (top quartile) means top 25% in your industry; above excellent (top decile) means top 10%.
The score is round-half-up integer. Passive responses are excluded from the subtraction by design — Reichheld's original thesis is that the gap between active advocates and active detractors carries the predictive signal, while passives represent neutral inertia.
B2B NPS medians run 10–20 points higher than B2C medians in the same vertical, primarily because B2B survey populations are smaller, more engaged, and over-represent decision-makers. B2B SaaS sits at the top of published benchmarks (+40 median, +65 top decile) while comparable B2C software runs +25 to +35. For B2B specifically, distinguish account-level NPS (one response per customer organization, from the decision-maker) from user-level NPS (every seat surveyed) — the two are not interchangeable.
Three structural differences move B2B benchmarks above B2C even when the underlying product quality is comparable. First, survey populations are smaller and known — a B2B vendor surveys 200 named accounts, while a B2C brand surveys 200,000 anonymous customers. The B2B response base trends toward engaged users; the B2C base trends toward extremes. Second, respondents are senior. B2B NPS reaches decision-makers and economic buyers who chose the product; B2C NPS reaches whoever clicked the email. Third, relationship value is higher. A B2B customer with a six-figure contract gives more deliberate, less reactive feedback than a consumer with a $50 purchase.
The B2B SaaS sub-vertical sits highest in published benchmarks because all three forces compound. B2B SaaS NPS benchmarks in 2026 sit at +40 median, +50 good, +65 excellent. CustomerGauge's annual B2B Benchmarks report is the most-cited source for this sub-vertical, particularly for account-level data. Within B2B SaaS, vertical-specific micro-benchmarks vary further — DevTools and developer-platform NPS often runs +50 to +60, HR tech runs +35 to +45, marketing automation runs +30 to +40, billing and finance tooling runs +20 to +35.
For B2B specifically, decide before you start whether you are running account-level NPS (one response per customer organization, weighted by ARR) or user-level NPS (every seat surveyed, weighted by individuals). Account-level scores typically run 10–15 points higher because they over-weight the relationship owner. Most published B2B benchmarks are account-level — compare like to like. See the longitudinal surveys guide for how to track both views over time on the same account record.
A good NPS sits above the median for your specific industry, not above a generic threshold. Reichheld's original tiers — anything above 0 is "good", above +30 "great", above +70 "world-class" — predate the methodology fragmentation that now distorts cross-industry comparison. The 2026 working definition: above your industry median is healthy, above the top quartile is strong, above the top decile is excellent. A +40 score is excellent for healthcare, average for B2B SaaS, and below median for management consulting.
The phrase "good NPS score" answers three questions at once, and they have different right answers. What is an objectively good score — answered by the −100 to +100 spectrum, where positive means more promoters than detractors, negative means the opposite. What is a competitively good score — answered by your industry median and top quartile from the table above. What is a directionally good score for your program — answered by your own trend, with methodology held constant.
The original tiers from Bain & Company's The Ultimate Question framework define 0 as the neutral threshold (more promoters than detractors), +30 as good, +50 as great, and +70 as world-class. These bands remain useful for category-naive reporting — a +70 is genuinely rare regardless of methodology — but they undersell the importance of industry context. A +30 in cable and telecom is excellent; a +30 in management consulting is below average.
The defensible working definition reads: good means above your industry median, strong means top quartile, excellent means top decile. A nonprofit at +35 is strong (top quartile, industry median +30). A retailer at +35 is strong (top quartile, industry median +30). A B2B SaaS firm at +35 is below average (industry median +40). The same absolute number describes three different competitive positions across three industries.
The most decision-useful answer ignores benchmarks entirely. A good NPS is one that improved over the prior cycle, with methodology held constant — same question wording, same scale, same collection moment, same response base. An organization moving from +18 to +24 to +29 across three quarters is doing better than a competitor reporting a static +35 because the trend signals improving program execution. Static high scores erode; rising scores compound.
Healthy NPS response rates depend on relationship type, not generic targets. Transactional NPS sent within 24 hours of a touchpoint typically returns 15–25%. Relational NPS sent quarterly or annually to the full base typically returns 5–15%. B2B account-level NPS to named contacts often reaches 25–40%. Internal eNPS to employees commonly returns 50–80%. A response rate below 5% indicates the comparison to industry benchmarks is unreliable regardless of the score.
| Program type | Channel | Typical range | Good | Excellent | When it falls below 5% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transactional NPS | In-app | 15–25% | 25–35% | 35%+ | Recheck trigger timing |
| Transactional NPS | Email (24-hr send) | 10–20% | 20–30% | 30%+ | Subject line / send-time fail |
| Relational NPS | Email (quarterly) | 5–15% | 15–25% | 25%+ | Survey fatigue likely |
| Relational NPS | Email (annual) | 8–18% | 18–28% | 28%+ | List quality / consent issue |
| B2B account-level | Email to named contact | 25–40% | 40–55% | 55%+ | Account owner relationship broken |
| Employee NPS (eNPS) | Internal email / HRIS | 50–80% | 80–90% | 90%+ | Trust deficit; anonymity doubted |
| SMS / WhatsApp | Direct message | 20–35% | 35–50% | 50%+ | Wrong number / opt-out |
Response-rate ranges drawn from CustomerGauge, Delighted, AskNicely, and SurveyMonkey published benchmarks. eNPS rates from Culture Amp and SurveyMonkey eNPS reports. Treat the typical range as the 25th–75th percentile band; "good" maps to top quartile, "excellent" to top decile of programs.
The strongest predictor of NPS response rate is timing relative to the experience being measured. A transactional NPS sent within 24 hours of a touchpoint returns 2–3x the rate of the same question sent two weeks later — the experience is still fresh and the respondent still recognizes the context. Quarterly relational surveys lose another 30–40% of response capacity per quarter as the customer relationship moves further from the most recent positive or negative moment.
The second-strongest predictor is respondent identity. Anonymous surveys outperform identified surveys in raw response rate by 5–15 points, but the qualitative trade-off is severe: anonymous responses cannot be followed up with, which means detractors disappear the moment they click submit. Identified responses enable closing the loop within 48 hours — the NPS feedback guide covers the trade-off in depth. For most B2B programs, identified collection plus visible response action produces both higher response rates over time and higher loyalty signal.
Low response rates have two distinct causes that require different fixes. List quality problems — outdated emails, broken consent, wrong contacts — appear as flat low response across all segments and degrade slowly. Survey fatigue problems appear as falling response rates over consecutive cycles and concentrate in specific segments (typically your most-surveyed accounts). The list-quality fix is cleanup; the fatigue fix is reducing survey frequency and increasing visible action on prior responses. See how to increase survey response rate for the operational playbook.
Good employee NPS sits between +20 and +35 for most industries; above +50 is excellent and rare. The eNPS formula is identical to customer NPS (% Promoters − % Detractors on a 0–10 scale), but the interpretation differs because employee populations behave differently. Technology and consulting lead at +20 to +35, financial services and manufacturing cluster at 0 to +20, front-line sectors (healthcare, retail, hospitality) often report −10 to +15, and nonprofit/mission-driven organizations frequently exceed +30 when mission alignment is strong.
The standard eNPS question is "How likely are you to recommend [Company] as a place to work?" on a 0–10 scale. The band thresholds (Promoter 9–10, Passive 7–8, Detractor 0–6) and formula (NPS = %P − %D) match customer NPS exactly. What differs is the meaning of each band. A customer-side detractor is a discontented buyer; an employee-side detractor is someone actively considering leaving — or already gone in spirit. The operational stakes are different even though the math is identical.
Three structural factors explain most of the variance across the table. Discretionary effort sectors lead — technology, consulting, and professional services attract employees with high autonomy and high mission identification, both of which raise eNPS independent of compensation. Front-line sectors trail — healthcare, retail, and hospitality run high-turnover operations with compressed scheduling and exposed labor, all of which depress eNPS regardless of management quality. Mission-aligned organizations outperform — nonprofit, education, and mission-driven for-profit firms see structural lift when the work matches employee values; the lift is genuine and durable, not a measurement artifact.
The single biggest interpretation mistake in eNPS is reporting the company-wide aggregate without department disaggregation. A +24 organization with engineering at −30 is not a +24 organization — it is a +45 organization with an engineering crisis. The aggregate hides the signal. Acting on the company-wide number fixes nothing because the actual problem is concentrated in one function. Every eNPS cycle should produce a department-level cut, and every department-level cut below 0 should produce a 30-day action plan before the next cycle launches.
For sectors with high front-line customer contact — retail, hospitality, healthcare — customer NPS and eNPS correlate strongly. Employees who would not recommend their workplace deliver experiences that erode customer recommendation. The relationship is causal and operational: detached employees handle complaints worse, escalate problems less, and signal disengagement to the customer in observable ways. The B2B and professional-services sectors show weaker eNPS-to-customer-NPS coupling because the customer rarely interacts with the day-to-day workforce. For more on the eNPS methodology and follow-up architecture, see the eNPS guide.
A good NPS score is one that sits above the median for your specific industry, not above a generic threshold. The 2026 industry medians range from roughly +10 in cable and telecom up to +50 in B2B SaaS and consulting. A score of +40 is excellent for healthcare or financial services, average for B2B SaaS, and below median for management consulting. Compare against your sector row, not the cross-industry average.
2026 industry medians sit around +50 for B2B SaaS and management consulting, +35 for technology and software, +30 for retail and e-commerce, +25 for financial services, +20 for healthcare and education, +15 for hospitality and airlines, and +5 to +15 for cable, telecom, and insurance. Composite drawn from Bain NPS Prism, SurveyMonkey, CustomerGauge, and ACSI-adjacent data. Ranges shift year-over-year; refresh the benchmark when you refresh your survey.
Good employee NPS sits between +20 and +35 for most industries. Above +50 is excellent and rare. Below 0 signals an engagement crisis. Technology and professional services typically lead at +20 to +35 typical, financial services and manufacturing cluster at 0 to +20, and front-line sectors (healthcare, retail, hospitality) often report −10 to +15. Nonprofit and mission-driven organizations frequently exceed +30 when mission alignment is strong.
Healthy NPS response rates depend on relationship type. Transactional NPS sent within 24 hours of a touchpoint typically returns 15–25%. Relational NPS sent quarterly or annually to the full customer base typically returns 5–15%. B2B account-level NPS to named contacts often reaches 25–40%. Internal eNPS to employees commonly returns 50–80%. A response rate below 5% indicates the comparison to industry benchmarks is unreliable regardless of the score.
The 2026 B2B SaaS median NPS is approximately +40, with a good threshold around +50 and an excellent threshold around +65. Account-level NPS run against named decision-makers typically exceeds user-level NPS run against day-to-day users by 10–20 points. CustomerGauge's annual B2B Benchmarks report and Bain NPS Prism are the most commonly cited sources for this sector.
The 2026 healthcare median NPS sits around +20 for health systems and +30 for specialty practices. Anything above +40 is excellent for the sector. Healthcare NPS skews lower than retail or SaaS because the underlying experience involves stress, illness, and high stakes. Compare against healthcare-specific benchmarks (Press Ganey, NRC Health) rather than the cross-industry average; the gap is structural, not performance.
Three structural reasons. Scale contamination — some studies use 1–5 or 1–7 scales converted to NPS-equivalents, producing inflated scores. Aggregation — a benchmark built from transactional NPS will be 10–20 points higher than one built from relational NPS. Sampling — invited-only surveys to engaged customers produce higher scores than open-population surveys. Always check the source's methodology before treating a benchmark as comparable to your own score.
Refresh the external benchmark comparison annually. Published industry benchmarks shift 3–8 points year over year as technology, economic conditions, and customer expectations move. Refresh your internal trend comparison every cycle — quarterly for transactional NPS, annually for relational NPS. The internal trend is the decision-useful signal; the external benchmark provides directional context.
Published top NPS scores by company include Tesla (around +96 in peak years), Costco (+79), Apple (+72), Starbucks (+77 in 2024 cycles), and Trader Joe's (+70). Treat published company NPS with caution — most are self-reported using inconsistent methodologies, undisclosed sample sizes, and undisclosed collection moments. The defensible use of a public company NPS is as a directional ceiling for your sector, not a precise target.
Four sources stand up to scrutiny. Bain NPS Prism for multi-sector Fortune 500 competitive benchmarking with documented methodology. SurveyMonkey's annual benchmarks for freely accessible eNPS and NPS ranges across small to mid-market. CustomerGauge for B2B SaaS account-level data. ACSI (American Customer Satisfaction Index) for consumer-side cross-sector reference. Cite the source whenever you use a benchmark; unsourced industry averages are rarely defensible in a board or funder conversation.
Benchmark tables answer one question. The full Stakeholder Intelligence guide covers how to run NPS as a continuous workflow — collection, identity-linked feedback, theme extraction, and detractor close-loop — across customers, employees, and beneficiaries on one participant record.
Read the Stakeholder Intelligence guide →Benchmarks are one input. Running an NPS program that produces decisions requires the full chain — collection, identity, qualitative analysis, segmentation, and close-loop. The guides below cover each piece on the customer and employee side, plus the survey-methodology cluster that sits underneath every NPS deployment. Start with the master Sopact Sense overview if you are new to the platform, or jump to the Stakeholder Intelligence engine pillar for the cross-instrument architecture.
Full NPS formula, worked examples, scale conventions, and the methodology choices that make scores comparable across cycles.
Dedicated NPS platforms vs integrated stakeholder intelligence. Pricing, feature gaps, and when each architecture wins.
How to extract themes from open-ended NPS responses, track stakeholder journeys, and generate insights in real time.
Reading every detractor comment, routing to the named owner within 24 hours, and verifying the loop actually closed.
eNPS meaning, formula, score interpretation, and how to run quarterly cycles that produce 1–2 department actions per round.
What a negative NPS means, what produces it, and how Charles Schwab moved from −35 to a customer experience benchmark in a decade.
What each metric measures, when to run which, and how to link both to the same participant ID for journey-level signal.
The full survey-analysis architecture beneath NPS — collection, cleaning, qualitative coding, segmentation, and reporting.
Scale, multi-choice, open-ended, matrix, ranking — which question type produces which analysis debt downstream.
Tracking the same respondent across waves using a persistent participant ID — the foundation for NPS trend signal.
Combining quantitative scales with qualitative open-ends in one instrument — the structure most NPS programs need.
Measuring change against a baseline — applies directly to NPS programs that need to prove intervention impact.
Open-ended-only surveys for the "why" behind every NPS score — analyzed at scale without weeks of manual coding.
Operational playbook for raising NPS and eNPS response rates without sacrificing data quality or respondent trust.
Benchmark tables age. Your survey doesn't have to. Sopact Sense runs NPS as a continuous program — every response routed to the named owner, every detractor comment read, every quarter compared against your own prior cycle and the live industry median. Book 30 minutes with our team or read the platform overview first.
