Every placement site answers questions about salary. This one grades the answers. Paste a claim and see whether it matches a band we could verify, contradicts one, or rests on a source that was never there.
Or start from a claim we have already met
A tool that grades other people’s salary claims has no business hiding its own. PapersAdda published every category of defect this checker looks for. On 2026-08-09 an audit logged 755 flagged passages across 358 of our own articles. Here is where that stands today, measured by checking whether each flagged passage is still on the page, word for word.
346
claims still on the site that we have not substantiated, across 197 articles. This is the number that is still ours to fix.
56 → 0
invented first-party sources — fake verification programmes, sample sizes nobody collected, a product we never shipped. All of them are gone.
23
pay figures on 16 of our 1,133 articles that the checker still flags against our own canon, awaiting a ruling one by one.
The uncomfortable half of that first number is the point. Substantiating 346 claims is slow work with no shortcut, and publishing the count before the work is finished is the only version of this page that is honest. One number moved for a reason worth stating plainly: the flagged-figure count was 44 until 8 September, when 21 of those 44 turned out to be the checker’s own error rather than the corpus’s — C-DAC’s Project Engineers judged against Wipro Elite, EY’s Associate Software Engineers against Accenture’s ASE, a salary quoted three years into a career read as an entry band. We fixed the checker, not the pages, and the same fix is why the tool above no longer calls a true claim about another employer off-canon. Figures recomputed 2026-09-08. If you find one we have missed, tell us and we will date the correction.
13 tiers across 6 employers, settled 2026-09-02. Every band below is candidate-reported, never official. A page may state a figure inside its band; a figure outside the band is a defect. 'no_range' means independent reports diverge so widely that asserting any band is fabrication.
| Employer | Tier | Candidate-reported band |
|---|---|---|
| TCS | TCS Ninja | 3.36–3.6 LPA |
| TCS | TCS Digital | 7–7.3 LPA |
| TCS | TCS Prime | 9.17–11.5 LPA |
| Infosys | Systems Engineer | 3.6–4.5 LPA |
| Infosys | Digital Specialist Engineer | 6.25–6.5 LPA |
| Infosys | Specialist Programmer | 8–9.5 LPA |
| Cognizant | GenC | 4–4.5 LPA |
| Cognizant | GenC Pro | 5.5–6.5 LPA |
| Cognizant | GenC Next | 6.5–7 LPA |
| Wipro | Wipro Elite | 3.5 LPA flat |
| Wipro | Wipro Turbo | 6.5 LPA flat |
| Accenture | ASE | 3.5–4.5 LPA |
| HCL | TechBee | 2–3.5 LPA |
| Cognizant | GenC Elevate | no quotable band |
| Accenture | Advanced ASE | no quotable band |
Settled by the wave-3/4/5 audit lanes after probing each employer's own careers site plus >=3 independent non-PA trackers per tier, discarding PA-echo results.
Worth knowing when a site quotes a figure as official: Cognizant publishes no CTC by track, TCS publishes no per-track CTC or exact NQT cutoffs and Mphasis publishes no sectional cutoffs or a selection rate.
Whether a number is officially correct. Every band here is candidate-reported and cross-checked against independent trackers. Most of these employers publish no fresher CTC at all, so nobody — including us — can hand you an official figure.
Anything about an employer outside the 6 it has audited. A claim about anyone else comes back not audited, which is a refusal to guess rather than a clean bill of health.
What your offer is worth. It reads CTC, and CTC is not take-home. For that use the in-hand calculator.
Whether a claim outside its rules is true. It is deterministic, not clever: it matches text against a canon and reports what it matched. Silence from it is not agreement.
The checker runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you paste is transmitted, stored or logged — there is no server here to send it to. How the rest of the site is verified is written up in our methodology.