Full Relocation Research Study 2026

Full Service Relocation Research Study

Why this research

The market moved toward cash. The companies closest to relocation are moving back.

For three years, the relocation story has moved one way: toward lump sum. Programs got simpler, budgets got more predictable on paper, and full-service relocation was widely described as a shrinking, executive-only option.

This study looks at the other side of that story. We surveyed 301 professionals at U.S. companies that provide full-service relocation benefits, all of whom play a role in developing, managing, approving, or influencing their mobility program, and asked what they believe it delivers and whether they intend to provide more of it.

The answer is that full-service relocation is not in retreat among the companies that use it. Companies are repositioning it as a talent instrument, measuring it more closely, and, in most cases, expanding it. 58% increased their use of it over the past two years. 65% expect to increase it again. Only 4% expect to pull back.

Who should read it

Built for the people who defend the relocation budget

HR and total rewards leaders setting policy for the coming plan year
Talent acquisition leaders losing candidates at the relocation conversation
Global mobility and relocation managers benchmarking their program against peers
Procurement and finance partners who need the cost question answered with data
Operations leaders weighing in-house management against an outside provider

“The debate about whether full-service relocation is worth it has largely been settled by the companies that use it. The open question is whether they can prove it.”

Inside the findings

Seven findings that change how the relocation conversation goes

A preview of what the full report covers in detail, with the data behind each finding.

40%

It is a talent instrument, not a perk

Four in ten describe full-service relocation primarily as a strategic talent acquisition tool. Only 1% call it a cost center.

84%

It wins where hiring is decided

Rated better than lump sum or reimbursement for job offer acceptance, retention and family support — the outcomes hiring managers feel first.

69%

It holds the cost argument too

Even on cost predictability, lump sum’s home ground, more than two-thirds say full-service performs better. Only 8% say worse.

79%

Buyers will pay more for proof

Nearly four in five would pay more if the program improved measurable outcomes, led by retention, offer acceptance and satisfaction.

88%

Confidence is outrunning measurement

Almost everyone says they can prove ROI. Of the companies providing full-service to win job offers, only a third track offer acceptance.

67%

Policy discipline separates the leaders

Companies with very clearly defined eligibility rules are nearly four times as likely to be very confident in ROI as those with loose rules.

What you get

What’s in the report

The market picture — volume, penetration and the direction of adoption
How companies define the value — and how they justify the spend internally
Who receives full-service — eligibility, governance and exception rates
The head-to-head comparison — twelve dimensions against lump sum and reimbursement
What programs include — and which services employees actually value
Barriers, vendors and ownership — where programs stall
What separates the strongest programs — five segment cuts, including a four-tier maturity framework you can score your own program against
The proof gap — the metrics companies track, and the ones they don’t
Technology and AI — where buyers want analytics to help
Implications for HR and mobility leaders — five actions to take into the next policy review

Benchmark yourself

Score your program on the maturity curve

The report includes a scoring framework built from the survey data. Companies are rated on five structural factors — eligibility clarity, outcome metrics tracked, share of moves on full-service, technology in use, and how the program is managed — producing a score from 0 to 8 and placing each program in one of four tiers.

The pattern is consistent. Moving up a tier aligns with better-rated outcomes, higher confidence in ROI, and greater willingness to invest. Not one of the five factors is a budget decision.

Programs at the top tier are four times as likely to be very confident they can prove ROI as programs at the bottom — 62% against 15%.

About the research: 301 responses, fielded August 24 to September 28, 2026. Margin of error: approximately ±5.7 percentage points at 95% confidence. Respondents confirmed that their organization provides full-service relocation benefits and that they play a role in the program.

Want to talk through what this means for your program?

Bobbi Maniglia, Vice President of Corporate Moving & Relocation Services — Bobbi.Maniglia@northAmerican.com | 800.213.4910. Ask about a complimentary relocation policy review.

North American Van Lines has been recognized as the highest in customer satisfaction by relocating employees for eight consecutive years by Trippel Survey & Research. This report is part of the Corporate Relocation Research Series, alongside The Lump Sum Crossroads and the 2024 Corporate Relocation Study.

Complete the form, below, to download the full study and see what’s in store for 2027.

Whitepapers & Research