Drawing on JRG Partners’ work across the executive search market, this report lays out the patterns and dynamics we see shaping leadership hiring. C-suite compensation varies widely by industry, role, company size, and structure, and understanding the patterns is essential to building competitive, defensible offers. This almanac lays out the major patterns shaping C-suite compensation across industries, as a framework for understanding executive pay, rather than a table of precise figures that quickly go stale.
Executive Summary
- C-suite compensation varies widely by industry, role, size, and structure.
- Equity and long-term incentives are central, especially in high-growth sectors.
- Industry shapes pay levels and structures significantly.
- Company size is a major driver of compensation levels.
- Competitive, defensible offers require benchmarking to the specific context.
What Drives C-Suite Compensation
C-suite compensation is driven by several major factors: the role (a CEO, CFO, and other C-suite roles command different levels), the industry (which shapes both levels and structures), company size (a major driver, larger companies pay more), company stage and ownership (public, private, PE-backed, each differs), and geography. Understanding executive pay means understanding how these factors interact, not just citing a single number. The patterns across these drivers, more than any specific figure, are what employers need to build competitive, defensible offers, since the right compensation depends on the specific combination of role, industry, size, and structure.
How Industry Shapes Pay
Industry significantly shapes C-suite compensation, in both level and structure. High-growth sectors like technology often feature substantial equity and long-term incentives, reflecting the growth-and-equity model, while more traditional industries may weight cash and different structures. Industries also differ in overall pay levels, driven by their economics, competition for talent, and norms. Understanding your industry’s compensation patterns, levels and structures, is essential to a competitive offer, since an offer competitive in one industry may not be in another.
| Industry Type | Typical Compensation Character |
|---|---|
| High-growth technology | Substantial equity and long-term incentives |
| Financial services | Strong cash and incentive compensation |
| Traditional industrial | Cash-weighted, structured incentives |
| Healthcare and life sciences | Varies by subsector and stage |
| PE-backed companies | Significant equity tied to value creation |
The Role of Company Size
Company size is one of the biggest drivers of C-suite compensation: larger companies, with greater scale, complexity, and resources, pay their executives substantially more than smaller ones, across every C-suite role. This means compensation benchmarking must account for company size, comparing to companies of similar scale, since a large-company benchmark misleads for a small company and vice versa. When assessing what to pay, or what an offer should be, matching to companies of similar size, alongside industry and other factors, is essential, since size shapes the appropriate compensation level as much as any other factor.
Equity and Structure
Beyond cash levels, the structure of C-suite compensation, especially the role of equity and long-term incentives, is central and varies by context. Equity is a major component of executive pay, particularly in growth companies and PE-backed businesses, where it aligns executives with value creation and can represent significant upside. The structure, cash versus equity, short versus long-term, the specific instruments, matters as much as the total level, and it varies by industry, stage, and ownership. Building a competitive offer means getting the structure right for the context, not just the cash, since executives evaluate the whole package and its structure.
What This Means for Employers
- Benchmark compensation to the specific role, industry, size, and structure, not a generic figure.
- Understand your industry’s pay levels and structures to be competitive within it.
- Match benchmarks to companies of similar size, a major compensation driver.
- Get the equity and incentive structure right for your context, not just the cash.
- Build defensible offers grounded in relevant benchmarking, especially amid pay transparency.
About This Report
This almanac reflects JRG Partners’ analysis of compensation patterns observed across industries in our executive search practice. It presents the structural patterns that shape C-suite pay, rather than precise figures that quickly go stale, and employers should benchmark specific offers to current, context-relevant data alongside this framework.
The Bottom Line
C-suite compensation varies widely by role, industry, company size, stage, and structure, so building competitive, defensible offers means benchmarking to the specific context, understanding your industry’s levels and structures, matching to similar-size companies, and getting the equity and incentive structure right, rather than relying on a single generic figure.
Related Reading
For employers going deeper, see 10 Executive Compensation Trends Reshaping Offers in 2026, The Anatomy of a Great Executive Offer, Compensation Benchmarking Template.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: What drives C-suite compensation?
- A: The role, industry, company size, stage and ownership, and geography, which interact to determine the appropriate level and structure, so no single figure captures it.
- Q: How does industry affect executive pay?
- A: Industry shapes both pay levels and structures, high-growth tech features substantial equity, traditional industries weight cash differently, so an offer competitive in one may not be in another.
- Q: Why does company size matter for compensation?
- A: Because larger companies pay substantially more across every C-suite role, so benchmarking must match companies of similar scale to be accurate.
- Q: How important is equity in C-suite pay?
- A: Central, especially in growth companies and PE-backed businesses, where equity aligns executives with value creation and can represent significant upside, so structure matters as much as cash.
- Q: Does this almanac give precise pay figures?
- A: It presents the structural patterns that shape C-suite pay rather than precise figures that quickly go stale, so employers should benchmark specific offers to current, context-relevant data.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
