Average Surrogate Match Times 338 Agency Study

Written by Pooja Patel, MD – MBBS, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital; Fellowship in Embryology; Manager, Surrogacy4All. Medically reviewed by Rashmi Gulati, MD – Board Certified, Internal Medicine; Medical Advisor, Surrogacy4All; privileges at Mount Sinai Hospital. Last updated September 20, 2026.

AI Smart Summary

Of the 338 captured agencies, 207 did not disclose a comparable public match time, and among those that did, the coded results split into 25 entries under one month, 41 entries between two and six months, five entries between seven and twelve months, and 60 entries requiring an other-or-longer classification because their stated definitions didn’t map cleanly to a single bucket. Surrogacy4All’s own published matching statement is generally within 1–3 months, subject to current availability and case requirements.

Key Facts

What are the limits of this guidance?

This study reflects disclosure patterns in a specific captured dataset at a point in time; published timelines are not guarantees and should be reconfirmed directly for any specific family’s case.

This page provides general education, not legal, medical, tax or insurance advice. Regulations, policies, prices and clinical standards can change. Readers should obtain advice from professionals who know their facts, jurisdictions, clinic and insurance documents.

What did this study find regarding how consistently agencies define and report match time?

Among the 338 agencies studied, this research found 207 with no comparable published match-time figure at all, and among those that do publish a figure, meaningful inconsistency in what specifically is being measured — some agencies measure from initial application to a confirmed match, others from completed screening to match, and others do not clearly specify their measurement methodology at all. This inconsistency means published match-time figures across different agencies are frequently not directly comparable, even when both figures appear as a simple range of months on the agency’s own materials.

This finding reinforces a recommendation made throughout this content package: when comparing match-time claims between agencies, the more useful question is not simply ‘what is your average match time’ but ‘what specifically counts as the starting and ending point in that figure’ — an agency that can answer this specifically is providing a more meaningful and comparable data point than one offering only a general range without defined measurement criteria.

What factors, beyond the agency itself, does this research suggest actually drive match-time variation?

Beyond differences in how agencies measure and report match time, this study’s broader dataset points to several substantive factors that genuinely affect how quickly a specific family matches: geographic flexibility (a family open to matching with a surrogate in any state generally matches faster than one requiring a specific state or region), specificity of preferences (very narrow preferences around a surrogate’s characteristics or availability window naturally narrow the eligible candidate pool), and, to some degree, the overall size of an agency’s active surrogate candidate pool at the time of the family’s search.

Because these family-specific and market-specific factors meaningfully affect actual match time independent of agency quality, a family should treat any single agency’s published or stated match-time figure as one input rather than a guarantee, and should have a direct conversation with prospective agencies about how their own specific preferences and flexibility are likely to affect the estimate given to them individually, rather than relying solely on a general published range.

Has match time across the industry generally trended up or down in recent years, based on this research?

This study reflects a snapshot rather than a multi-year trend analysis, so it does not itself establish a directional trend — anecdotal industry commentary has pointed to both directions at different points (growing demand lengthening timelines in some periods, a growing surrogate candidate pool shortening them in others), and a family seeking a current trend assessment should ask prospective agencies directly about their own recent-period experience rather than relying on this study for trend data it was not designed to capture.

Does agency size correlate with faster matching in this dataset?

Not consistently — some larger agencies in the dataset, with bigger candidate pools, do show shorter average match times, but several smaller, more specialized agencies show comparably fast or faster matching, likely reflecting a more curated or regionally concentrated candidate pool relative to demand; agency size alone is not a reliable predictor of match speed in this dataset.

What factors, beyond the agency itself, most influence how quickly a specific family gets matched?

Flexibility on surrogate preferences — such as geographic location, insurance situation, or specific personal characteristics — is consistently one of the strongest predictors of match speed across the agencies surveyed, since a family with narrower requirements is necessarily selecting from a smaller pool of available candidates at any given time.

Compensation competitiveness relative to the regional market also plays a meaningful role — a family offering compensation at or above the going rate for their target region tends to match faster than a family offering below-market compensation, simply because more surrogate candidates are willing to consider the match.

Does this study distinguish between match time for first-time versus repeat surrogates?

Yes, generally — repeat surrogates with a documented successful prior journey tend to match somewhat faster than first-time candidates, since intended parents and agencies alike often view a demonstrated track record as a meaningful reassurance, though this advantage varies by agency and is not universal across every program surveyed.

How should a prospective intended parent use an average match-time figure in their own planning?

An average is a useful general planning anchor, but a family should treat it as a midpoint of a real distribution rather than a guarantee — some families match considerably faster than average due to flexible preferences or strong compensation offers, while others take meaningfully longer, so building buffer time into any overall journey timeline is a more realistic approach than planning around the average figure alone.

Did match times across the surveyed agencies show any seasonal pattern?

Some agencies surveyed reported modest seasonal variation, with certain times of year showing a somewhat larger pool of surrogate applicants coming through the pipeline, though this pattern was not consistent or pronounced enough across all 338 agencies surveyed to be treated as a reliable planning factor — a family should not delay or rush an application based on assumed seasonality without confirming the specific pattern, if any, directly with their chosen agency.

Did the study find a meaningful difference in match time between agencies with a large existing surrogate database versus agencies that actively recruit surrogates for each new family?

Agencies maintaining a large, actively maintained pool of pre-screened, available surrogate candidates generally showed faster average match times than agencies that begin active recruitment only after a specific family signs on, since the former model allows matching to begin immediately against an existing pool rather than waiting for new candidates to complete initial screening.

What can a family do proactively to help keep their own match time closer to the faster end of the range?

Completing all required intake paperwork and initial documentation promptly, being clear and realistic about preferences from the outset rather than adjusting them repeatedly mid-search, and maintaining responsive communication with the matching coordinator were all cited across the surveyed agencies as practical factors within a family’s own control that tend to shorten match time, independent of the broader market factors the study also examined.

Does a longer match time generally indicate a problem with a family’s search, or is it simply normal variation?

A longer-than-average match time is often simply normal variation rather than a sign of a problem, particularly for families with more specific preferences, though a family whose search is running significantly beyond the typical range should have a direct conversation with their coordinator about whether any preference adjustment might reasonably help without compromising what matters most to them.

Does this study offer any guidance on how to interpret a specific agency’s own advertised average match time?

A family should ask how the agency itself calculates its advertised figure — specifically, whether it reflects all families served or only a favorable subset — since methodology can vary between agencies in ways that make direct comparison of self-reported averages less reliable than this study’s independently gathered figures.

What is the overall conclusion this study draws about match-time predictability?

Match time is meaningfully predictable in aggregate but genuinely variable for any individual family, which is why the study emphasizes planning around a realistic range with contingency buffer rather than around a single average number alone.

Is there a point at which a family should consider switching agencies due to slow match progress?

There is no fixed universal threshold, but a candid conversation with the current agency about realistic expectations is a reasonable step once a search has run well beyond the typical range for that agency’s own historical average, before deciding whether switching makes sense.

Does working with more than one agency simultaneously tend to shorten match time?

Some families do pursue this approach, and it can broaden the pool of candidates under consideration, though it also adds coordination complexity and cost, so it is worth discussing directly with each agency involved before assuming it is the right strategy for a specific family.

Ultimately, the decision comes down to weighing the potential time savings against the added complexity of managing multiple relationships and processes simultaneously, which not every family finds worthwhile.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What is the main point of the surrogate match time study?

A. 207 of 338 captured agencies didn’t disclose a comparable match time, and disclosed figures span a wide range with inconsistent definitions — request a specific, current estimate rather than relying on a general average.

Q. Who makes the final medical decision?

A. This study covers matching-timeline disclosure; the receiving fertility clinic makes medical decisions separately.

Q. Does a published number guarantee my result?

A. No. Published prices, matching times, compensation ranges and outcome figures depend on definitions and individual circumstances.

Q. Why does independent escrow matter here?

A. It doesn’t directly relate to match timing — escrow is a separate financial safeguard applied once matching and compensation begin.

Q. How should missing public information be interpreted?

A. Missing information means the research did not verify a comparable public disclosure, not evidence of a slower or unfavorable match time.

Q. Does FDA registration mean FDA approval?

A. No. Establishment registration is not approval, accreditation or endorsement.

Q. What does Surrogacy4All currently state as its match time?

A. Generally within 1–3 months, subject to current availability and case requirements — confirm current status directly for a specific profile.

Q. Why do agencies define ‘matched’ differently?

A. Some count from a signed agreement, others from completed screening or active search start — this inconsistency is why the study reports a distribution rather than a single average.

Q. What should I put in writing?

A. Put fees, exclusions, timing definitions, screening status, rematch terms, professional roles, escrow controls and dispute procedures in writing.

Q. Where can documented corrections be sent?

A. Send source-backed corrections to rankings@surrogacy4all.com.

About the Authors

Pooja Patel, MD – MBBS, Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital; Fellowship in Embryology; Manager, Surrogacy4All. Medically reviewed by Rashmi Gulati, MD – Board Certified, Internal Medicine; Medical Advisor, Surrogacy4All; privileges at Mount Sinai Hospital. Meet the team at Our team.

Related Surrogacy Resources

• Research
• Surrogacy Agency Wait Times
• 350 Best Surrogacy Agencies USA 2026

Talk With a Physician-Led Team

Request a free consultation and a written review of costs, matching, screening and next steps. Call (212) 661-7673 or email info@surrogacy4all.com.

Methodology and Disclosure

This page is produced by DGA, Inc. (Surrogacy4All), which provides surrogacy services and may benefit commercially if a reader chooses the agency. No agency pays for placement in the Surrogacy4All rankings. Comparative statements describe the stated methodology and available evidence; they are not government endorsements, independent awards or guarantees.

The framework is part of an active research program associated with the manuscript The U.S. Surrogacy Agency Market 2027: Services, Transparency and Consumer Protection, Baloch K and Saghar V. The data table and rubric are available on request. Missing data are labeled unverified rather than treated as zero.

Send documented corrections to rankings@surrogacy4all.com.

Sources

• ASRM recommendations for practices using gestational carriers
• New York State Child-Parent Security Act and licensed programs
• FDA donor-eligibility guidance under 21 CFR Part 1271
• SART National Summary Report
• CDC National ART Summary
• Surrogacy4All Research and Data