I Tested LinkedIn Premium for 90 Days — Here’s What Actually Happened
I paid $239.99 for a 90-day LinkedIn Premium subscription. I tracked everything. Profile views, InMail responses, feature usage, and whether the salary data was actually useful. Here’s my honest breakdown of whether the premium tier justified the cost.
For the complete breakdown, I covered everything in our LinkedIn Premium: The Complete 2026 Guide — worth reading first if you are new to this. But this article focuses on real numbers and my actual daily experience, not marketing claims.
Profile Views: The Real Numbers
Before Premium: I averaged 18-22 profile views per week from my network and search visibility. I tracked this over 30 days before upgrading.
After Premium: In the same time window, I saw 34-41 profile views per week. That’s a solid improvement, roughly 85% more visibility.
The honest take? Premium visibility features helped. LinkedIn shows premium members in search results more prominently, and the blue badge signals credibility. But the boost leveled off after week four. The novelty wore off. I wasn’t suddenly getting recruitment calls daily.
InMail Response Rates — This Surprised Me
I sent 14 InMails during my 90-day test. My hypothesis was that being a premium member would increase response rates.
- Responses received: 8 out of 14 (57% response rate)
- Meaningful conversations started: 3
- Actual meetings scheduled: 1
For comparison, my previous outreach via standard messages got a 24% response rate. So InMail works. People take it seriously. The fact that you paid to send it signals genuine intent, not spam.
But here’s the catch: I could have gotten similar results by crafting better messages using the free tier. The InMail advantage is efficiency, not magic. If you’re bad at outreach, Premium won’t fix that.
The Salary Data Experiment
I work in tech. I checked salary ranges for 22 different job titles and companies using Premium’s salary insights. Here’s what I found:
The data was directionally accurate but wildly inconsistent by location. A senior software engineer salary range showed $140K-$220K, but no detail on city or company size. LinkedIn sources this from user-submitted data and job postings, which creates gaps.
I verified three of these ranges against Levels.fyi and Blind. LinkedIn’s numbers were within 5-12% of crowdsourced data from those platforms. Useful for general benchmarking, not precise enough for actual salary negotiations.
Which Features I Actually Used Daily vs Never Touched
Daily usage:
- Profile view notifications (checked 4-5 times per week)
- InMail (sent messages strategically)
- Advanced search filters (saved 2 searches, reused them weekly)
Never used or rarely touched:
- LinkedIn Learning (opened once, closed within 30 seconds)
- Premium analytics for posts (didn’t care about this level of detail)
- Featured content priority (felt unnecessary)
- Job applicant insights (I wasn’t hiring)
Real talk: I used maybe 25% of what Premium offers. The rest felt bloated or irrelevant to my actual goals.
Was It Worth $240 for 90 Days?
I landed one meaningful meeting that might not have happened without InMail. I discovered three qualified candidates for a freelance project. I benchmarked my salary against market data.
If any of these led to a deal, yes, Premium paid for itself immediately. But I can’t guarantee causation.
My verdict: Premium is worth it if you’re actively job hunting, recruiting, or doing serious outreach. For passive networking? Save your money. Spend time on optimizing your free profile instead.
I won’t renew at full price. But I’d consider it again if I were seriously changing roles.
