Companies With Menopause Benefits: A Verified 2026 List

Within that cohort, education and coaching was documented more than eight times as often as medication support, and not one U.S.-scoped employer in this list documents menopause-specific leave.

Thirty-five of the 40 rows rest on a live employer page or a dated 2025–2026 official source. Five rely on older 2022–2024 employer evidence and are flagged throughout. This is a documented minimum: a count of employers whose own public materials explicitly name menopause or perimenopause support. It is not a prevalence estimate and not a promise that every employee at every company receives the same thing.

Once you separate the categories, the shape of the public evidence is lopsided:

• Clinical access is documented six times as often as medication support. Eighteen companies document clinical or specialist access. Three explicitly document HRT or medication support.
• Education, coaching, manager training or peer support is documented 8.7 times as often as medication support. Twenty-six companies document at least one of those non-medication forms of support.
• Not one U.S.-scoped employer in this cohort documents menopause-specific leave, and not one documents menopause-linked flexible working or adjustments. Among the 13 rows whose public evidence is U.S., North America or U.S.-benefit-plan scoped, one documents medication support and one documents a formal policy or accreditation.
• Six of the 40 rows cannot be assigned even one of the six support categories from the public wording. The employers name menopause support, but the source does not say what the support includes.

Those are findings about public documentation, not a verdict on how much any employer cares or what may exist inside a private benefits portal.

What this list is:a normalized comparison of what 40 employers publicly document about menopause, coded under one written rule set, with each employer’s own source linked. What it is not: an employer score, a quality assessment, a prevalence sample, or a guarantee of eligibility. Absence from this list is not evidence that a company offers nothing.

Download the data: CSV · JSON

Answer: We identified 40 companies with publicly documented menopause-specific benefits or formal workplace support, verified July 31, 2026. The matrix separates clinical care, HRT or medication support, leave, workplace adjustments, education or coaching, and formal policy rather than treating them as one benefit. Every row links to a source the employer itself controls.

Category key: CClinical or specialist access  MHRT or medication support  LMenopause-specific leave or absence treatment  FMenopause-linked flexibility or adjustments  EEducation, coaching, manager training or peer support  P Formal policy or external accreditation

Evidence grade: A= current live employer page or dated 2025–2026 official source  · B= employer-controlled source dated 2022–2024

Detail level: Detailed= source describes how at least one part of the support works  · Partial= establishes one or more support types but leaves major operating terms unstated  · Named only = names menopause support or an accreditation with little or no operational detail

Every row carries a caveat in the downloadable dataset explaining what its source proves and what it does not. We wrote those caveats because the gap between “this company has a menopause benefit” and “this benefit applies to me” is where most of the damage gets done.

Answer:“Menopause benefit” is an umbrella term, not a standardized product. We code six distinct types of support, and they are not interchangeable: clinical access, HRT or medication support, leave or absence treatment, workplace flexibility or adjustments, education or coaching, and formal policy or accreditation.

A benefits page that says “we support our colleagues through menopause” might mean access to a clinician, a prescription-cost benefit, a manager-training program, an employee network, a formal absence rule, or nothing more specific than the sentence itself. All of those may be genuine. They are not the same offer.

• 18 of 40 companies (45%) meet our “Detailed” threshold.
• 14 of 40 (35%) provide partial detail.
• 8 of 40 (20%) are “Named only.”
• 6 of 40 (15%) name menopause support but provide too little information to assign any of the six categories.

The six unassigned rows are Zurich North America, McDermott Will & Schulte, EY UK, AlixPartners, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Hearst Television. AtkinsRéalis and AngloGold Ashanti Australia are also “Named only,” but each source expressly names an external accreditation, which is enough to code the policy/accreditation category.

The careful finding: 22 of 40 companies — 55% — do not publish detailed operating terms. That does not mean the benefit is weak. It means a reader cannot determine all of its scope, mechanism, eligibility or cost from the public page alone.

Answer: Eighteen companies document clinical or specialist access. Only three document HRT or medication support: Adobe, Standard Chartered and Boots. That six-to-one difference matters because access to a care platform does not establish that prescribing, medication or treatment costs are covered.

This is the distinction we most want a reader to leave with. Care access and treatment-cost support are different things.

Clinical access means the employer’s source establishes access to a clinician, specialist, GP service, diagnostics, second opinion or provider network that supplies care. Medication support means the same source explicitly says something about HRT, prescription medication, prescription-cost payment or relevant treatment coverage. A vendor name by itself never earns the medication flag.

Eleven of the 18 clinical rows name a third-party delivery route: Maven appears in six rows; Peppy in two; Kindbody, Progyny and Bupa in one each. The public employer pages generally do not disclose the length of those commercial arrangements, so the matrix records the benefit as verified on July 31, 2026 rather than implying a permanent commitment.

Read those three rows carefully, because they are three different promises. Adobe’s source establishes plan coverage subject to cost-sharing. Boots states that it pays documented prescription costs for eligible team members taking HRT. Standard Chartered’s source establishes a global policy commitment to prescription-medication support, but does not publish country-by-country cost terms.

None should be compressed into “the company pays for HRT.” We would rather publish three careful sentences than one clean, wrong one.

Boots is the only company in the cohort that documents medication support without documenting clinical access. Adobe and Standard Chartered document both.

Answer:Three companies meet our strict leave-or-absence rule: Organon, Tesco and Vodafone. Six document menopause-linked flexibility or workplace adjustments. None of the qualifying rows is U.S.-scoped. General sick leave and general flexible-working policies were excluded unless the employer’s source explicitly connected them to menopause.

The three leave models do different jobs. Organon documents customized leave in its Canada program. Tesco documents an absence-review rule rather than a new bank of leave: menopause-related time off is not counted in the cited absence-review calculation. Vodafone documents leave for sickness or treatment under a named policy.

Calling all three “menopause leave” without the mechanism would lose the part that determines what an employee can actually use.

• Microsoft’s ordinary time off was not counted as menopause-specific leave. Its menopause page mentions existing time off, but the separately documented menopause benefit is Maven access for eligible U.S. employees and partners enrolled in a Microsoft medical plan.
• XPS Group was not counted for menopause-linked flexibility or adjustments. Its benefits page lists a Menopause Policy, agile or flexible working and a Workplace Adjustment Policy, but presents them as separate items and does not explicitly connect the latter two to menopause.
• Standard Life was counted for adjustments. Its current benefits page establishes access to a Bupa menopause GP, while an official employer account documents workplace support including flexible hours.
• Hitachi Rail was not counted as accredited. Its source says the company is working toward accreditation.
• Allianz Ireland was counted for a formal policy, not certification. Its source documents a menopause-guidance policy and separately describes certification as an ambition.
• AngloGold Ashanti Australia was counted for accreditation, not flexibility. Its job listing names Menopause Friendly accreditation, but the flexible-work language is not explicitly tied to menopause.

Answer: Public evidence is geographically uneven. Thirteen rows are U.S., North America or U.S.-benefit-plan scoped; 15 are UK-scoped; the rest are global, multi-country, Australian, Irish, Canada-specific in part, limited to certain locations, or publicly unclear. The matrix preserves that wording instead of turning a local benefit into a worldwide claim.

The contrast is sharpest in formal policy and accreditation: 9 of 15 UK-scoped rows document one, compared with 1 of 13 U.S.- or North-America-scoped rows.

The dataset cannot tell us how much of that gap reflects actual employer practice and how much reflects what employers publish. It can tell us that the reporting environments differ. Employers with 250 or more employees in scope for Great Britain’s gender-pay-gap rules report each year, and several company records in this matrix were found in gender-pay-gap, sustainability or workforce reports rather than ordinary benefits pages.

That makes some UK evidence easier to locate. It does not prove that reporting law caused the policy gap, or that British employers provide better benefits.

We did not publish a prevalence map. Several rows are global, multi-country or unclear, and forcing those employers into one country would make the picture look more precise than the evidence.

Answer:There is no single current U.S. prevalence figure. Published employer studies report values from 4% to 58%, but they survey different employer populations and count different things. The range is not one market measure moving through time. It is a warning that the phrase “menopause benefit” has no common survey definition.

Within this comparison, KFF is the only study that reports a random employer sample calibrated to Census firm totals. Its question is also narrow: whether firms offering health benefits hold a vendor contract to support workers or dependents during menopause. That is not the same as asking whether an employer has a policy, a webinar or a peer group.

Business Group on Health’s 58% comes from 121 member employers covering 11.6 million lives. It is useful evidence about a specific population of very large, benefits-focused employers. It is not a national rate for all U.S. firms.

SHRM’s 27% comes from a large respondent pool, but SHRM states that the 2026 data is unweighted. It describes the organizations represented by the responding HR professionals; it should not be silently converted into a Census-weighted national estimate.

Mercer measured plans. Its 18% figure is the share that planned to offer specific resources in 2025, not a verified count of programs operating when the survey was fielded.

Watch the noun and the verb.“Vendor contract,” “support program,” “resources,” “counseling or education,” “planned” and “offered” are not interchangeable.

One figure is unusually concrete: SHRM’s 2024 survey found that 2%offered menopause or menstrual leave beyond regular sick time. That narrow definition is much closer to the leave category in this matrix than the broad “support” percentages are.

Answer:The most repeated U.S. figures are $1.8 billion and $26.6 billion from Mayo Clinic’s 2023 work, and $5.4 billion from a 2025 RAND report. They do not measure the same thing. The $26.6 billion figure is especially easy to misuse: it combines lost work time and medical expenses, rather than measuring productivity loss alone.

The Mayo study invited 32,469 women receiving primary care at four Mayo Clinic sites. A total of 5,219 responded, and 4,440 employed respondents supplied the work-outcome data used in the analysis. Among those respondents, 13.4% reported at least one adverse work outcome related to menopause symptoms, and 10.8% reported missing work in the previous year. Among those who missed work, the reported average was three days.

Women in the highest quartile of Menopause Rating Scale symptom severity were 15.6 times as likely to report an adverse work outcome as women in the lowest quartile. Those are strong results inside the study population. The response rate and demographic concentration still matter when the figures are extrapolated to the entire country.

RAND’s $5.4 billion is both an upper-bound calculation within the mechanisms RAND modeled and a conservative lower-bound estimate of the broader economic burden. That sounds contradictory until the exclusions are visible: RAND estimated the high end of missed-days, reduced-hours and layoff losses, but did not capture early retirement, missed promotions, transitions to lower-paying work, presenteeism and several other pathways.

The clean citation is therefore never just a dollar amount. It is the dollar amount plus the thing measured.

Answer: The matrix verifies public employer documentation as of a stated date. It establishes what an employer publicly described and when we checked it. It does not establish benefit quality, actual enrollment, utilization, clinical outcomes or universal eligibility.

The cohort is deliberately nota representative sample. Forty cannot be divided by the number of employers in a country to manufacture a prevalence rate. For prevalence questions, the employer surveys in Table 7 are the right instruments — with their sampling frames and definitions attached.

Answer:A company enters the cohort only when a publicly accessible, company-controlled source explicitly names menopause or perimenopause support for employees or covered partners. We read each source, applied one rule set to all 40 employers, recorded geography and eligibility where the source disclosed them, and coded only what the employer’s wording establishes.

Qualifying source types are:

• Employee-benefits pages
• Careers and rewards pages
• Formal employer policies
• Annual, sustainability, workforce and gender-pay-gap reports
• Employer newsroom announcements
• Employer-hosted plan documents

The following do not qualify on their own:

• A general health plan with no menopause or perimenopause language
• A general women’s-health benefit with no menopause or perimenopause language
• A vendor saying that an employer is a client
• A newspaper or HR publication naming an employer
• An assumption about what a named vendor normally provides
• A stale secondary claim that cannot be matched to employer-controlled evidence

Widely circulated employer lists often recycle company names from old articles. We are not saying those companies lack support. We are saying an old sentence in somebody else’s article is not current employer evidence.

Clinical or specialist access (C): Yes only when the employer source documents clinicians, menopause specialists, GP access, diagnostics, clinical guidance, second opinions or a provider network that supplies care.

HRT or medication support (M): Yes only when the employer source explicitly documents HRT, prescription medication, prescription-cost payment or relevant treatment coverage. A virtual-care vendor alone does not qualify.

Leave or absence treatment (L): Yes only when the source documents menopause-specific leave, explicit treatment of menopause-related absence, customized leave tied to menopause, or sickness or treatment leave under a menopause policy.

Flexibility or adjustments (F): Yes only when the employer source expressly links flexible work or workplace adjustments to menopause. General flexible work is not enough.

Education, coaching, manager training or peer support (E): Yes when the source documents coaching or advisers, education, toolkits, training, champions, employee groups, peer support, classes, webinars or awareness programming.

Formal policy or accreditation (P):Yes for a formal menopause policy or an external menopause-friendly accreditation that has already been awarded. “Working toward accreditation” is not accreditation.

Grade Ameans a current live employer-controlled page or a dated 2025–2026 official source. Thirty-five rows.

Grade Bmeans an employer-controlled source dated 2022–2024. Five rows: Genentech (October 2024), Udemy (February 2024), BSI (2024), Standard Chartered (October 2023) and Monzo (2022).

A live undated page proves that the employer was publishing the language on July 31, 2026. It does not prove when the page was written or last revised.

The following organizations were reviewed and not included during this pass:

Sony Music, Lululemon, Timpson, Santander, Osborne Clarke, Foot Anstey, ClearScore, WW, ASOS, Remitly, Checkr, Intuit and Bristol Myers Squibb.

This is not evidence that they offer nothing. Several are reported elsewhere as having menopause support. It means we did not locate enough current employer-controlled public evidence to satisfy the inclusion rule.

1. Open a row’s official source.
2. Confirm that the employer explicitly names menopause or perimenopause support.
3. Read the stated geography and eligibility instead of assuming global access.
4. Compare the wording with each of the six category rules.
5. Assign only the categories the source expressly supports.
6. Preserve any uncertainty in the row-level caveat.
7. Recalculate the totals from the row flags.

The downloadable CSV and JSON contain the fields needed to repeat those calculations.

Answer: Employers with 250 or more employees can now publish voluntary equality action plans alongside their gender-pay-gap data. Subject to secondary legislation, the plans are expected to become mandatory from spring 2027 and will state actions addressing both the gender pay gap and menopause support.

The UK government guidance was published March 4, 2026 and updated May 13, 2026. It says in-scope employers create and publish the plan through the gender-pay-gap service. Employers select at least two planned actions: at least one addressing the gender pay gap and at least one supporting employees experiencing menopause.

This changes the public evidence base. It does not automatically create a clinical benefit, prescription benefit, leave entitlement or adjustment for every employee. A published action may be training, policy review, data collection, job-design work, flexible-working support or another item from the government’s evidence-informed list.

Menopause itself is not a specific protected characteristic under the UK Equality Act 2010. Acas explains that menopause-related treatment may still engage protections connected to age, disability, gender reassignment or sex, depending on the facts.

For U.S. state requirements, see menopause workplace laws by state and menopause laws by state.

Answer: The largest limitation is public disclosure. An employer may run a substantial private program and be absent, while an employer with a thin public statement may appear. Five rows rely on older official evidence, and several current pages do not publish dates or complete eligibility terms.

• Public-disclosure bias is the big one. This is a census of qualifying public evidence we found, not a census of everything employers do.
• Searchability differs by country and employer. Some large UK employers publish workforce and gender-pay-gap reports that expose policy details. Other employers place benefit terms behind employee logins.
• Five rows rest on 2022–2024 evidence. Genentech, Udemy, BSI, Standard Chartered and Monzo remain visible with a Grade B warning. Monzo is the oldest evidence in the cohort.
• Live pages are often undated. We can verify what was visible on July 31, 2026. We usually cannot verify when an undated page was last revised.
• Third-party program duration is not public. Eleven clinical rows name a delivery route, but the employer pages generally do not publish contract terms or renewal dates.
• We measured documentation, not quality. Nothing here establishes whether employees use a program, like it, can get an appointment quickly, receive effective treatment or experience better health or work outcomes.
• Eligibility varies. Country, plan enrollment, employee class, full-time status and spouse or partner coverage differ by employer.
• This is not a prevalence estimate. Forty is a documented employer count, not a share of the labor market.
• This is not medical advice or employment-law advice. For your own coverage, use your current plan documents, benefits portal or HR team.

Suggested page citation

The HRT Index Editorial Team. “Companies With Menopause Benefits: A Verified 2026 List.” The HRT Index Research. Last verified July 31, 2026. https://thehrtindex.com/research/companies-with-menopause-benefits/

Suggested dataset citation

The HRT Index. Menopause Benefits Evidence Matrix (2026). Version 1.1, July 31, 2026. The HRT Index Research. https://thehrtindex.com/research/companies-with-menopause-benefits/

The underlying data is available as CSV and JSON. Each comparison table on this page carries a visible source line so its numbers can be reproduced accurately.

The HRT Index Editorial Team manually reviewed employer-controlled public benefits, careers, policy, report, plan-document and newsroom sources; applied the published inclusion and coding rules to every employer; recorded geography, eligibility and caveats at row level; and calculated the category totals from the resulting evidence matrix rather than editing them by hand. Survey and cost figures were taken from their original publishers and kept with their stated populations, definitions and limitations.

Editorial research — not medically reviewed. This page concerns employer documentation, not clinical guidance.

Update policy: We re-verify every row quarterly and check source links monthly. The visible verification date and structured-data modification date change only after a completed verification pass. Substantive changes belong in a public change log stating the previous value, new value, reason and new official source.