Himalayas vs Jobicy
Short answer
If you want to know the pay before applying, Jobicy: 56.7% of its listings carry pay information against 45.9% for Himalayas. On volume it is Himalayas that is larger (5,267 vs 1,380 live listings).
Measured, side by side
Both boards read continuously over a rolling 30-day window. The bolded figure in each row is the stronger of the two for a job seeker — on description completeness and ghost rate, lower is better.
| Himalayas | Jobicy | |
|---|---|---|
| Live listings (30 days) | 5,267 | 1,380 |
| Distinct companies | 2,852 | 306 |
| Pay info in the listing | 45.9% | 56.7% |
| …in a field a machine can read | 33.3% | 2.0% |
| No usable description | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Possible ghost jobs | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| Graded A or B by us | 34.1% | 6.2% |
| Genuinely location-free | 0.2% | 6.1% |
Why the two pay columns differ
"Pay info in the listing" asks whether the salary appears anywhere in the posting. "In a field a machine can read" asks whether it sits somewhere a filter can reach. Where those diverge, the board has the number and buries it in prose — you can find it, but only by opening every listing.
We publish both because quoting only the parsed figure would report our own extraction limits as the board's failing.
Read either one on its own
Himalayas, measured →
Jobicy, measured →
Other boards we measure: 4 Day Week, Arbeitnow, We Work Remotely, Hacker News “Who is hiring?”, Real Work From Anywhere