Compensation Benchmarking

🚨 NEW RESEARCH 🚨 GTM compensation is shifting dramatically according to Pavilion's new 2025 Compensation Benchmarks Report. Today, Pavilion released the most comprehensive compensation study available for GTM executives in partnership with Captivate Talent. Unlike traditional reports that focus only on base salaries, commissions and bonuses, our GTM Compensation Benchmarks include critical insights into often-overlooked compensation components like equity terms, exercise windows, guaranteed severance, and deal sweeteners. And even better: In addition to a PDF you can download and take with you, we've got an interactive widget that lets you slice and dice the data to see exact comps for your situation or the role you're hiring for. So, if you want to know what the median base salary is for a CMO in the United States at a company with $20M or under in annual revenue, the widget can tell you (it's $283k 😉 ). Here's what's changed dramatically in 2025: ⭐ Median executive compensation dropped 13%, driven by an industry-wide shift from "growth at all costs" to efficient, profitable growth ⭐ Equity is less common and less valued by executives, reflecting skepticism amid sluggish exit markets and heightened economic uncertainty ⭐ Deal sweeteners such as signing bonuses and pre-negotiated severance are declining, as employers regain leverage and prioritize performance-based incentives Yet, there's a clear bifurcation: Top-performing GTM execs - those skilled at driving efficient growth, leveraging AI, and adapting to volatility - are commanding higher premiums than ever. If you're considering a new role, here's my advice based on these insights: ✅ Negotiate extended equity exercise windows: Only 3% of execs currently secure this, but it's one of the most impactful (and overlooked) deal terms you can push for ✅ Prioritize guaranteed components (base salary, signing bonuses, pre-negotiated severance) over uncertain equity upside, unless equity terms are exceptionally favorable ✅ Ask about transparency: Make sure you fully understand equity structures, acceleration clauses, and what happens to your shares upon acquisition. Surprisingly, many executives lack clarity here, creating unnecessary career risk We’re entering a period of significant volatility (and opportunity), making compensation negotiation more strategic than ever. If you're a GTM exec, your future leverage depends on staying informed and negotiating intentionally. Check out the full 2025 Pavilion GTM Compensation Benchmarks Report and ensure you're positioned to succeed 👉 https://hubs.ly/Q03kqS2h0 #ExecutiveCompensation #KathleenHQ

4 year long grants are no longer the market standard–be very careful when looking at equity compensation benchmarks The simple way to do equity benchmarking is –1) Look at new hire equity target benchmarks –2) Use those benchmarks to directly inform your company’s new hire targets for total grant size But if you’re looking at benchmarks that mix 1, 2, 3, and 4 year grants into the same sample set, you’re at risk of mixing apples and bananas in a way that can substantially impact your equity comp accuracy and SBC over time. To take a step back, let’s take a look at how the market standards for equity vesting durations have evolved over the past five years for private and public companies across both new hire and ongoing (refresh) grants. _______________ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀: ↗️ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average new hire grant has increased from 3.2 to 4.0 years from 2020 to 2025 ↘️ 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average new hire grant has decreased from 3.4 to 3.0 years from 2020 to 2025 _______________ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗢𝗻𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵) 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀: ➡️ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average ongoing grant has stayed most flat at around ~3.5 years ↘️ 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 => the average ongoing grant has decreased from 3.6 to 2.9 years from 2020 to 2025 _______________ 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: 1️⃣ 𝟰 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗯𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱. In particular, the average public company grant is now ~3.0 years in length for both new hire and ongoing grants. And even private company ongoing grants are averaging ~3.5 years in length these days. 2️⃣ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝟰.𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 after a period of exploration with shorter grants during Covid and the ZIRP era. _______________ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴: As mentioned above, the anti-pattern that I frequently see is when companies perform their equity comp market analyses on total equity grant sizes rather than annualized equity grants. This is the typical way of working with traditional survey providers, for instance. But it is a fairly substantial misstep given the now commonplace experimentation of varying vesting durations across the market today. When looking at equity benchmarks, 𝗜 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 and then backing into your company’s equity program (2 year, 3 year, 4 year, etc grants).

I used to market benchmark roles one at a time. Every new hire. Every promotion. Every pay review. Compensation bands changed everything.   At first, it was just about saving time.   I'd try to benchmark a role as the need arose, but as the company grew, the problems quickly grew with it.   Manually benchmarking roles were: - Always reactive to a need (hiring, counter-offers etc.) - Manual and time consuming - Prone to inconsistencies Worse yet - Each individual benchmark required approval, slowing me (and the business) further.   I was effectively building our comp logic every time a decision needed to be made.   It was slow, chaotic, and risky, and it wasn't a great credibility builder for me or the People function.   Then my eyes were opened to how things could be by building compensation bands.   That by crafting a set of salary bands informed by the market data but built to our comp philosophy, we could proactively solve for our needs.   I built something that was: - Based on benchmark data, but internalised to fit our strategy - Allowed hiring managers, talent acquisition and anyone that needed it to have the data they required (in a click) - Enable fair, consistent decisions at scale   This simple shift also made pay equity and level progression visible and manageable.   And yeah, while it takes some effort upfront, the downstream gains are massive.   When you have bands: ✅ You don’t have to explain your logic every time ✅ You don’t bottleneck at the Head of People or Finance ✅ You stop redoing work that could’ve been decided once and reused 100 times ✅ You make decisions faster — and fairer   Comp bands were a huge efficiency enabler.   And every startup that’s scaling beyond 50 people needs this. Because the cost of doing it ad hoc is compounding every quarter.   What's your biggest challenge when building comp bands?

How much LP allocators earn? Data from 140 allocators across endowments, FOs, and FoFs 👇 ◾️ The Emerging Allocators Association (EAA) just published compensation data for early-career LPs. As someone who lives in VC/LP land, this feels less like “a survey” and more like a shift in bargaining power. ◾️ The sample: ~140 responses from associates to directors at endowments, foundations, family offices, funds of funds, and pensions. For allocators with <8 years’ experience, base salaries mostly sit in the 100k–150k band. ◾️ For allocators with less than 8 years' experience: - Base salaries cluster in the $100k–$150k range - 72% of those with 3 years' experience fall in that band - Cash bonuses mostly under $50k for the first 7 years - Even at year 7, over half still report base of $100k–$150k ◾️ If you’re a PE associate or banking analyst, you can benchmark comp in 15 minutes. If you’re an early-career allocator, you’re flying blind – there’s no widely accepted “market grid” for LP roles. ◾️ The reason is structural. Public filings only disclose senior nonprofit staff pay. Junior roles fall below the ~$150k threshold. No Form 990 trail to follow. ◾️ One stat really jumped out: 42% of respondents feel underpaid vs market. To me that reads less like “complaining” and more like an admission that people don’t even know where the market is. ◾️ Grace Brown frames the survey as a negotiation tool. I see a second-order effect: this is the beginning of a proper labor market for emerging allocators – with reference points instead of vibes. ◾️ On LinkedIn, I see most reactions are “this is overdue” and “finally benchmarks,” especially from younger LPs and recruiters. GP and banking folks immediately compare the numbers to associate comp and carry, which sharpens the perceived gap. ◾️ Practically, this will change who self-selects into LP roles. Fewer “accidental allocators,” more people who consciously trade GP economics for mission, stability, multi-asset exposure, and lower deal heat. ◾️ It also creates tension for institutions. Do endowments and foundations move ranges closer to GP/FO/OCIO pay, or double down on “mission and lifestyle” as the justification for a discount? ◾️ Retention math gets harder to ignore: if you’re 5 years in at ~130k base + 30k bonus and your peers in GP seats are at 200k+ with carry, the calculus shifts. Surveys like this create both negotiating leverage and exit pressure. ◾️ I’m not convinced LP comp should fully converge to GP levels – it’s a different risk profile and intensity. But a coherent argument for lower pay doesn’t require opacity; you can be explicit about the trade instead of hiding numbers. ◾️ My read: institutions that lean into transparency will attract a higher-intent LP talent pool. Those that stay opaque will quietly lose people. For emerging allocators, this is the first real chance to benchmark if the trade you’re making actually makes sense. What's your take on this?

Navigating Pay Trends with Mercer’s Total Remuneration Survey — Insights from Cairo 2025 💼📊 The Mercer Total Remuneration Survey (TRS) session in Cairo provided an in-depth look into how organizations are recalibrating compensation strategies amid ongoing inflation and currency volatility. 🔹 Robust Benchmarking: Mercer’s TRS now spans 438 companies and 200,000 employees in Egypt, part of a 25-million-record global database — a reliable benchmark for both multinationals and local firms. 🔹 Pay Trends 2025: The projected salary movement for 2025 is 20%, exceeding the referenced inflation rate (19.7%) for the first time in years — a signal of renewed confidence and retention focus. 🔹 Functional Pay Insights: “Same incumbent” analysis shows an average 25% increase across roles, with professionals recording the highest median growth (43%). 🔹 Industry Differentiation: Life Sciences and Chemicals continue to outperform the General Market on Total Cash Compensation, while FMCG & Retail remain below median. 🔹 Benefits & Allowances: Car and transport allowances saw steady rises, aligning with cost-of-living pressures and vehicle price inflation. 🔹 Performance Pay Gap: Actual payouts remain below targets since 2022, underlining ongoing performance pressure across sectors. A key takeaway was Mercer’s call for companies to build their own internal inflation indices reflecting their employee demographics — ensuring global alignment without losing local relevance. The TRS remains a vital tool — a compass for compensation navigation — helping organizations maintain competitive pay positioning in turbulent economic waters. #Mercer #Compensation #PayTrends #HRAnalytics #EgyptMarket #AhmedFarahat

How a Public Company’s Proxy Statement Helped A GC I advise to Negotiate a 30% Higher Salary Recently, I was helping prepare a GC for a big salary negotiation. She had just received an offer from a public company, and while it was solid, I knew she could push for more. But instead of relying solely on internet estimates or industry benchmarks, we turned to a goldmine of information that most job seekers overlook: the company’s proxy statement (DEF 14A). The Hidden Treasure in SEC Filings For those unfamiliar, a proxy statement is a document public companies file with the SEC, revealing detailed compensation data for top executives—including salary, bonuses, stock options, and performance incentives. It’s designed for shareholders, but it’s just as useful for job candidates. We pulled up the company’s latest proxy statement and started digging. Here’s what we found: ✅ The CEO’s base salary had increased by 12% over the past year—meaning the company was in a growth mode and willing to pay more. ✅ Executives had performance-based bonuses tied to revenue targets, suggesting that negotiation around incentives was possible. ✅ The median executive salary was disclosed, giving us a benchmark for where she should be within the organization’s pay structure. ✅ Equity compensation was a big part of executive pay, meaning she could negotiate for more stock options instead of just salary. How We Used This to Her Advantage When she walked into the negotiation, she didn’t just ask for a higher number—she anchored her request in the company’s own compensation philosophy. ➡️ She pointed out that compensation had been rising across leadership, signaling they were open to increases. ➡️ She referenced the median executive pay and explained why her experience and role placed her in the top percentile of that range. ➡️ She structured her counteroffer not just around salary but also performance-based bonuses and stock options, aligning her interests with the company’s. The Result? A 30% increase in base salary, plus additional equity. Most candidates walk into negotiations with generic market data. But when you use a company’s own financial disclosures, you shift the conversation from a personal request to a data-backed business case. So next time you're negotiating, don’t just Google salary ranges—pull up the proxy statement, understand the company's pay strategy, and leverage it to your advantage. #SalaryNegotiation #CareerGrowth #CompensationStrategy #ExecutiveCompensation #ProxyStatement #JobSearchTips #NegotiationSkills #CareerDevelopment #FinancialLiteracy #KnowYourWorth

What can comp teams do with skills data? The most basic use case is to benchmark with better precision. I illustrated this in my newsletter post this morning with a simple analysis of two similar open jobs at Uber: - Same company, level, location, and posted salary range, but clearly different titles - so either they share a job code powering the range or they have a disclosure strategy to limit what they share - Compose "custom jobs" in Compa using the skills in the job description for each of them, e.g. Pytorch, Python, Node.js, Go - The offers-based market data for reveals each job commands materially different pay in the market - $163k-$193k for the SWE Ads role, $192k-$230k for the MLE role - The posted range midpoint aligns to the 44th percentile for the MLE role and above the 95th percentile for the SWE role, yet both appear to have the same range That's a 16% difference for base salary. The new hire equity medians vary by over 50%. Without skills, these jobs appear to be the same. With skills, they are in completely different talent markets. Once you start to analyze the market with skills data, it's hard to unsee it... Link to my newsletter post and analysis below. #compensation #totalrewards

One of the most important and tricky things for startups to get right is compensation and payroll spending—especially now, with profitability under sharper focus. Yet, clear benchmarks are often missing, leading to tough and sometimes sub-optimal decisions. The overwhelming response to our report last year on Startup Compensation benchmarking encouraged us at xto10x to publish another edition of the report that includes deeper insights and more meaningful data and benchmarks for one of the most critical cost areas in any startup’s P&L. The report themed ‘Evolving Compensation Trends- Indian Startup Ecosystem’ attempts to answer some of the common questions that founders and HR leaders repeatedly ask: - What’s the right mix of cash and equity for different roles? - How should ESOPs be structured to attract and retain talent? - How does compensation evolve as a startup grows? The report includes Compensation trends and Insights on how companies across different industries & stages have approached payroll as percentage of revenue; Fixed hikes, Variable payouts and ESOP grants in 2024-25; Levelling architectures for 8 diverse job families (Marketing, Sales, HR, Finance, Product Management Data Science, Engineering & Design) and a detailed analysis of all the compensation levers - Fixed, Variable, and ESOPs. This year, we’ve expanded the scope with deeper insights on founder and leadership compensation, more business functions, and data from more startups across sectors like Fintech, Edtech, SaaS, D2C, and more. I would like to thank all the startups which contributed to the benchmarking study. Hope this serves as a useful resource for startup teams, CHROs, and investors navigating these decisions to build a competitive yet sustainable rewards framework. Would love to hear thoughts from those who’ve been working through these challenges firsthand. The free version of the report has been provided below. For the complete report or a discussion on Total Rewards, feel free to write to us at rewards@xto10x.com. xto10x PeopleCues