# The Pay-Shape Reference by Role Class, and What a Total Hides

*You can take any quoted total, split it into guaranteed floor, at-risk variable, and discounted equity, and compare two market segments without being fooled by the bigger headline.*

- Canonical URL: https://www.refolk.ai/candidates/guides/pay-shape-reference-by-role-class
- Pillar: Reading the market
- Format: Reference
- Published: 2026-09-12
- Last reviewed: 2026-09-12
- Reading time: 16 min

Before you commit a search to a role class or an industry, you need to know how pay is built there, not just how big the number gets. This reference is for the job seeker choosing where to aim: it translates a quoted total in an unfamiliar field into its guaranteed floor, its at-risk portion, and its realizable equity, so a base-heavy public-sector total and an OTE-loaded sales total can sit in the same table on the same basis. Jump to the row you need; each section stands alone.

The published compensation guides benchmark one role's number or decode one posting's range. None maps how pay is composed across segments so you can choose before you have an offer in hand. That is the gap this fills.

## Why a total number hides more than it shows

A quoted total tells you the ceiling, not the floor. The same headline can mean "money I will bank" in one field and "money I might earn if a lot goes right" in another, and the only way to know which is to split the number into its parts.

Pay has three components: guaranteed base, at-risk variable, and equity. Base pays regardless of performance. Variable pays on attainment, which is rarely 100 percent. Equity pays on a liquidity event that may never come, or comes years late and diluted. A single total blends all three into one figure that flatters whichever component is least real.

This is why the "bigger number" test fails across segments. In government, wages and salaries account for 61.6 percent of employer compensation cost, with benefits at 38.4 percent - a base-dominant shape that guarantees most of its headline. In quota-carrying sales, half the headline may be variable that only pays at exactly 100 percent quota, and median attainment across many plans can sit in the 30s and 40s after a quota hike. The public total guarantees more per headline dollar even when the sales total is larger.

> The headline tells you the ceiling. The mix tells you the floor. Only the floor is yours.

## Pay shape by role class: the lookup table

Here is the default pay shape for the major role classes a searcher chooses between. Read the row for your target, note what carries the variance, and treat these as starting assumptions to confirm, not guarantees.

| Role class | Typical base share | Variable form | Equity? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SaaS AE | ~50% | Commission on bookings | Sometimes |
| SDR/BDR | 60-70% | Commission per pipeline | Rare |
| IB analyst | ~48-59% | Cash bonus 70-115% of base | No (cash) |
| MBB consultant (MBA) | ~67-72% | Capped bonus 10-35% | No |
| Tech IC (senior+) | Under 50% | Annual bonus + equity | Yes (major) |
| Public sector | ~62% of cost | Minimal supplemental | No |

Two patterns matter here. First, base share is inversely related to how much of the story is upside: the more a field talks about total, the less of it is guaranteed. A full-cycle SaaS AE runs a 50/50 base-to-variable mix; an SDR or BDR runs 60/40 or 70/30; in industrial and non-tech markets, splits lean heavily toward base, often 70/30, 60/40, or even 80/20.

Second, the variable itself takes different forms that fail differently. An IB analyst's bonus is 100 percent cash and typically ranges from 70 to 115 percent of base, so a first-year analyst on a $115K base might receive an $80K to $130K bonus, totalling roughly $190K to $245K. A tech IC's third component is equity, which introduces realizability risk that a cash bonus never has. Consulting sits between: base-heavy with a capped performance bonus of 10 to 35 percent of base depending on level and rating, where the cap is a ceiling and not a promise.

> **Note:** Employer cost is not take-home
>
> The public-sector 62% figure is a share of employer compensation cost, which includes benefits the employer pays. It is the best available lens on pay shape for a field with no equity and low supplemental pay, but it is not the same basis as a self-reported total. Do not compare it directly against a levels.fyi number without adjusting.

## What a quoted total actually guarantees, component by component

The guaranteed floor is base alone, the only amount paid regardless of performance. Everything above it is a claim about the future that needs a discount before it belongs in a comparison.

Start with the variable. A 60/40 mix on $200,000 OTE means $120,000 guaranteed base and $80,000 variable earned when the rep hits quota exactly. OTE - on-target earnings - is the pay at precisely 100 percent attainment, a single point on a distribution that describes almost nobody. The mix stays 50/50 on paper, but realized comp drifts toward base because nobody hits 100 percent consistently. A 40/60 mix on a quota that 80 percent of the team misses is a pay cut with a story.

The accelerator is where OTE misleads most. A base rate applies up to quota and an accelerated rate applies above it; accelerators commonly run 1.5x to 2x the base rate, and per WorldatWork most enterprise sales plans include this structure. That makes realized pay bimodal: overperformers clear OTE, and the median lands under it. The single OTE number sits in a valley almost no one occupies.

#### From OTE headline to what most reps bank

| Stage | Figure | Note |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Quoted OTE | 200,000 | 50/50 mix headline |
| Guaranteed base | 100,000 | paid regardless of attainment |
| Variable at 100% | 100,000 | only at exact quota |
| Variable at median attainment | varies | multiply by rolling 12-month median |

*On a 50/50 mix, the guaranteed floor is half the headline, and realized variable depends on where the median attainment actually lands.*

Now equity. A cash bonus varies in size but is spendable when paid. Equity varies in realizability: whether it converts to money at all, when, and at what discount. These are two different risks and they need two different discounts. Do not fold them into one adjustment.

**74.3% - Median quota attainment across 1,000+ commission plans, Dec 2025**

The same dataset showed a median of 11.1% a year earlier, which is why you must ask for the current rolling figure rather than trust a plan's assumed 100%.

## Discounting equity: private versus public, options versus RSUs

Equity risk scales with company stage, not with your role. The same "TC" is worth materially less at a private firm because the shares have no market price, sit behind a liquidation preference, and often carry double-trigger vesting that delays value.

| Factor | Public company | Private company |
|---|---|---|
| Common vs preferred gap | None | 20-40% lower |
| DLOM range | 0% | 15-35% (up to 50%) |
| Options-to-RSU grant ratio | 2:1 to 3:1 | Not market-priced |
| Vesting trigger | Single (time) | Often double-trigger |

Two adjustments do most of the work. Common employee stock is priced below preferred, often 20 to 40 percent lower, because of the rights gap. On top of that, a discount for lack of marketability applies: the 2024 AICPA practice aid recommends 15 to 35 percent for typical venture-backed private companies, reaching 40 to 50 percent for very early or distressed firms. As a percent of value, the illiquidity discount should shrink as the firm grows larger. Companies switch to RSUs on average 5.5 years after incorporation, at an average post-money valuation of $1.05B, so the presence of RSUs is itself a maturity signal.

Options and RSUs are not the same instrument. Stock options require payment to exercise; if the stock price is below the exercise price they are underwater and typically will not be exercised. Public companies grant options-to-RSU at commonly 2-to-1 for higher-volatility stocks, up to 3-to-1 for mature companies, which tells you roughly how many options it takes to match one RSU of value.

> **Watch out:** A private "TC" is not a cash number
>
> A private-startup "$400K TC" read as spendable is the classic false positive. A large share of that total is illiquid equity value, not cash. Apply a DLOM of 15 to 35 percent, confirm a plausible liquidity event exists, and never count underwater options at grant value.

## The procedure: decode a quoted total into a comparable figure

The job is to turn a headline into three numbers you can defend: guaranteed floor, risk-adjusted variable, and risk-adjusted equity. Work in order, and stop when both targets are stated on the same basis.

#### From headline total to risk-adjusted comparison

1. **Identify the role class and its default pay mix** - Name the typical base, variable, and equity split for the target class before you look at any single number. Done when you can state, for example, SaaS AE at 50/50 or IB analyst at base plus a 70-115% cash bonus.
2. **Split the quoted number into components** - Decompose the headline into guaranteed base, at-risk variable, and equity using the class default. A 60/40 mix on $200,000 OTE means $120,000 guaranteed base and $80,000 variable at exact quota.
3. **Establish the guaranteed floor** - Isolate base alone, the only amount paid regardless of performance. Done when you have a single number you would receive if every variable and equity component paid zero.
4. **Discount the variable to expected value** - Multiply the at-risk portion by realistic attainment, which requires the attainment distribution. Ask for the rolling 12-month median; below 65% the variable side is decorative.
5. **Discount the equity for type, liquidity, and dilution** - Adjust for options versus RSUs and public versus private. For private common stock, apply a DLOM of 15 to 35 percent and confirm a plausible liquidity event before counting the value.
6. **Normalize to a single comparable figure per segment** - Express each target as guaranteed floor plus risk-adjusted variable plus risk-adjusted equity. Done when both offers are stated on the same basis rather than as raw totals.
7. **Compare segments side by side** - Put both normalized figures in one table so a base-heavy public total and an OTE-loaded sales total sit on the same basis. Done when the comparison no longer depends on which headline is larger.

Practitioners disagree on one point of order. Some discount equity before variable, because private equity can be worth zero and there is no point risk-adjusting a commission line if the equity swamps everything. If your target is an early private company, run step five first.

**Normalized comparison worksheet**

```
Target: __________            Target: __________
Guaranteed base:  $______     Guaranteed base:  $______
Variable at 100%: $______     Variable at 100%: $______
  x median attainment: __%      x median attainment: __%
  = risk-adj variable: $____    = risk-adj variable: $____
Equity headline:  $______     Equity headline:  $______
  x (1 - DLOM): __%             x (1 - DLOM): __%
  x liquidity prob: __%         x liquidity prob: __%
  = risk-adj equity: $____      = risk-adj equity: $____
NORMALIZED TOTAL: $______     NORMALIZED TOTAL: $______
```

*Fill one column per target, then compare the bottom row. Keep the three risk-adjusted lines separate so you can see which component carries the offer.*

Tailoring an application to each of these targets - and reflecting the right mix language back in a cover letter - is exactly the friction [Refolk](/candidates) removes once you have decided which segment to chase.

## How this goes wrong: failure modes and false positives

Most bad comparisons come from a small set of repeatable errors. Each has a false positive that looks like a good offer and a check that exposes it.

- **Reading OTE as guaranteed.** A $200K OTE treated as salary. Isolate base only, then ask for median attainment. Realized comp drifts toward base because nobody hits 100 percent.
- **Equity headline read as cash.** A private "$400K TC" treated as spendable. Apply a DLOM of 15 to 35 percent and confirm a liquidity event exists; much of the total is illiquid equity value.
- **Ignoring quota inflation.** The mix looks generous but the quota was raised. Check the rolling 12-month median attainment; below 65 percent signals decorative variable, and medians can sit in the 30s and 40s after hikes.
- **Treating options like RSUs.** Valuing underwater options at grant value. Options require payment to exercise; below the exercise price they typically will not be exercised at all.
- **Comparing gross totals across sectors.** A base-heavy public total and an OTE-loaded sales total look equal at the headline and are not on a risk-adjusted basis. Normalize to the guaranteed floor first.
- **Assuming bonus caps are targets.** Consulting and IB ceilings are not promises. The maximum in the offer letter is a ceiling; only the top 5 to 10 percent of performers reach it.
- **Trusting self-report medians as population truth.** Self-report samples skew high through selection bias. Cross-reference with government employer-cost data.

> **Rule:** Never compare two totals until both floors are isolated
>
> The first move is always to strip each offer down to base alone. If you cannot state the guaranteed floor for both targets, you are not yet comparing pay - you are comparing marketing.

The deepest of these is quota inflation, because it is invisible in the mix. A 50/50 plan reads the same before and after a quota hike, but the realized variable collapses. The attainment distribution, not the mix ratio, is where the upside actually lives. Ask for it in writing before you sign.

## Why the sources disagree, and which to trust for what

No single source gives you clean base, variable, and equity together with population-level rigor. You pick sources by what each one proves and where each one lies.

Government employer-cost data is a rigorous survey that breaks cost into wages and salaries, supplemental pay including nonproduction bonuses, and benefits. Its blind spot is equity: it measures employer cost, not stock, so it undercounts pay shape in equity-heavy tech. Use it as the trustworthy anchor for base share and for fields without equity. In private industry, wages and salaries averaged $32.60 per hour and 69.9 percent of employer cost; supplemental pay averaged $1.84 per hour in private industry versus $0.66 in state and local government.

Self-report platforms separate base, bonus, and equity from what workers volunteer, which is the only clean view of equity you will get. Their weakness is selection bias: the sample reflects workers who choose to report, which skews high. One such source reported 2025 median total comp of $226K for a software engineer, $312K for senior, and $457K for staff - useful for shape, not for a population median. Notably, 70 percent of reporting tech workers receive equity, while only around one-third of companies are observed offering stock, which is itself a selection tell.

#### Which source to trust for which question

Horizontal axis runs from Blended totals to Broken-out components. Vertical axis runs from Self-reported to Survey-rigorous.

| Quadrant | What it means |
| --- | --- |
| Blog aggregates | Use only for directional pay mix, never for a floor |
| Government employer-cost data | Trust for base share and non-equity fields |
| Anecdotal offer screenshots | Ignore for benchmarking; useful only as leads |
| Self-report comp platforms | Trust for equity shape, discount the medians |

*Match the source to the pay component you are trying to pin down, and use two sources when a field is both equity-heavy and self-reported.*

The practical rule: use government data for the floor and for fields without equity, use self-report platforms for the shape of equity-heavy fields, and cross-reference the two whenever a total is both self-reported and equity-loaded.

## Thin markets make totals harder to sanity-check

Talent-pool depth signals mobility and benchmarkability, not pay level. A deep pool means many comparable offers to triangulate against; a thin one means a quoted total is hard to sanity-check because there are fewer peers to compare it to.

| Role | Market | Pool count | US-to-market multiple |
|---|---|---|---|
| Account Executive | United States | 240,568 | 13.9x vs UK |
| Account Executive | United Kingdom | 17,286 | 1.0x (base) |
| Software Engineer | United States | 349,217 | 15.7x vs Germany |
| Software Engineer | Germany | 22,300 | 1.0x (base) |

In Refolk's index of professional profiles, the US Account Executive pool is 240,568 against 17,286 in the UK, a 13.9x gap, and the US Software Engineer pool is 349,217 against 22,300 in Germany, a 15.7x gap. Within the US, the software engineer pool is 1.45x the account executive pool.

The mechanism matters for decoding a total. In a thin market, fewer comparable offers exist, so a quoted number is harder to place. If you are weighing a role abroad or in a small segment, budget more time for benchmarking and lean harder on component-level sources, because the headline has less local context to correct it.

Ask me this: `Enterprise account executives at US SaaS companies with 8+ years carrying quota` - [run the search](https://www.refolk.ai/start?q=Enterprise%20account%20executives%20at%20US%20SaaS%20companies%20with%208%2B%20years%20carrying%20quota).

*Returns a population of senior quota-carriers you can use to sanity-check whether a quoted OTE and mix are typical for the segment before you commit your search to it.*

## Before you commit your search: the check

Run this before you pick a target segment or accept that a headline is worth chasing. If any item fails, you are comparing marketing, not pay.

#### Have I actually decoded this total?

- [ ] I can name the target role class's default base, variable, and equity split.
- [ ] I have isolated the guaranteed base as a single number.
- [ ] I have the rolling 12-month median attainment, or I have flagged the variable as unverified.
- [ ] I have applied a DLOM to any private-company equity and confirmed a plausible liquidity event.
- [ ] I have valued options as options, not as RSUs, and checked they are not underwater.
- [ ] I have treated every bonus cap as a ceiling, not a target.
- [ ] Both segments are expressed as guaranteed floor plus risk-adjusted variable plus risk-adjusted equity in one table.
- [ ] I have cross-referenced any self-reported median against government employer-cost data.

## Keeping this current

Pay shape drifts, so re-check the two inputs most likely to move rather than trusting a stored value. The first is attainment: median quota attainment across large plan samples swung from 11.1 percent to 74.3 percent in a single year, so the rolling 12-month figure for your specific plan is the number to ask for, every time. The second is equity discounting: the AICPA practice aid updates its DLOM guidance, so confirm the current recommended range before you model a private grant.

Everything else in this reference is structural and moves slowly. Sales mixes cluster where they have long clustered, IB analyst bonuses stay cash-heavy with deferral rising by seniority, and government stays base-dominant with rich benefits. When you decide where to aim next, open this table first, decode the total into its floor and its two discounts, and compare on that basis. Once you have chosen the segment, Refolk writes the resume from your history and tailors it to each posting in that field, so the deciding work you did here carries straight into the applications.

## Frequently asked questions

### What does OTE actually guarantee?

OTE guarantees only the base portion of the mix; the rest pays at exactly 100 percent quota attainment. On a 60/40 mix at $200,000 OTE, only $120,000 is guaranteed and the $80,000 variable depends on hitting quota. Because median attainment across many plans can sit well below 100 percent, realized pay usually drifts toward base. Treat OTE as a ceiling scenario, not a salary.

### How do I compare pay across industries fairly?

Normalize every offer to guaranteed floor plus risk-adjusted variable plus risk-adjusted equity before you compare. Isolate base first, discount the variable by realistic attainment, and discount equity for type and liquidity. Only then put the two segments in one table. Comparing raw totals across sectors is the single most common error, because a base-heavy public total and an OTE-loaded sales total are not equal on a risk-adjusted basis.

### Is base vs bonus vs equity different by industry?

Yes, sharply. Quota-carrying sales runs roughly 50/50 to 70/30 base-to-variable with rare equity, IB analysts are base plus a 70-115 percent cash bonus with no equity, consulting is base-heavy with a capped 10-35 percent bonus, tech ICs add equity as a major third component, and public sector is base-dominant with minimal supplemental pay. Each field fails differently, so each needs its own discount.

### How much should I discount private-company equity?

For typical venture-backed private companies, the 2024 AICPA practice aid recommends a discount for lack of marketability of 15 to 35 percent, reaching 40 to 50 percent for very early or distressed firms. Common stock also often prices 20 to 40 percent below preferred. On top of the discount, confirm a plausible liquidity event exists; illiquid equity that never converts is worth zero regardless of the headline valuation.

### Why do self-reported salary sites read high?

Self-report sources reflect workers who choose to report, which skews the sample toward higher earners and toward equity-heavy roles. They separate base, bonus, and equity cleanly, which is useful, but their medians are not population truth. Cross-reference against government employer-cost data, which is a rigorous survey but does not capture equity, so use the two together rather than either alone.

---

*From the Refolk guide library. I revise these guides rather than replacing them, so the current version is always at https://www.refolk.ai/candidates/guides/pay-shape-reference-by-role-class*