One disadvantage of the method is its use of "universal" factors. Although, as mentioned it is quite possible for an organization to develop its own compoundable factors, factor comparison uses factors with common definitions for all jobs. This means using the same factors for all job families.
The definition of key jobs may be another disadvantage. A major criterion of a key job in factor comparison is the essential correctness of its pay rate. Since key jobs form the basis of the job-comparison scale, the usefulness of the scale depends on the anchor points represented by these jobs. But jobs change, sometimes imperceptibly. When jobs change and when wage rates change over time, the scale must be rebuilt accordingly. Otherwise users are basing their decisions on what might be described as a warped ruler.
The use of monetary units may represent a disadvantage if, as is likely, raters are influenced by whether a job is high-paid or low-paid. An unnecessary possibility of bias would seem to be present when raters use the absolute value of jobs to determine their relative position in the hierarchy.
Finally, the complexity of factor comparison may be a serious disadvantage. Its many complicated steps make it difficult to explain and thus affect its acceptance.
developing a point plan is complex. There are no universal factors, so these must be developed. Then degree statements must be devised for each of the factors chosen. All this takes time and money. Further, point plans take time to install. Each job must be rated on the scale for each factor, usually by several raters, and the results must be summarized and agreed to. Considerable clerical work is involved in recording and collating all these ratings. Much of this time and cost, however, can be reduced by using a ready-made plan.
Job classification is subjective, so jobs mightfall into several categories. Decisions rely on the judgment of the job evaluator. Job evaluators must evaluate jobs carefully because similar titles might describe different jobs from different work sites.
Subjective decisions about compensable factors and the associated points assigned might be dominate. The job evaluator must be aware of biases and ensure that they are not represented in points assigned to jobs that are traditionally held by minority and female employees.
Compensable factor comparison is a time-consuming and subjective process.