# Compensation Trends 2027

Ravio’s annual report on hiring, retention, and total rewards trends in European tech. 618,000 datapoints, 1,600 companies, 142 Reward Leaders.

Canonical: https://ravio.com/reports/compensation-trends-2027

_This is the machine-readable twin of the report. Generated from the same source as the page by `scripts/ct2027/build-twin.ts`; every table comes from the figure’s own `ChartSpec`. Do not edit by hand._

## Contents

01. Key findings: This year’s headlines
02. Foreword: Pay is stabilising. Pay structures aren’t.
03. Chapter 1: Salary trends
04. Chapter 2: Total rewards trends
05. Feature: How is AI impacting rewards roles?
06. Chapter 3: Executive compensation trends
07. Chapter 4: Hiring trends
08. Chapter 5: Retention trends
09. Chapter 6: Pay equity trends
10. Acknowledgements: The people behind the report
11. Methodology and glossary
12. About Ravio

## Key findings: This year’s headlines

- **90%** of Reward Leaders use AI in their day-to-day work. But only 8% trust it to run a full comp review end to end. (See in Feature: AI in reward)
- **21%** of employees got a pay rise this year. Compared to 16% in 2025. (See in Chapter 1: Salary trends)
- **2 in 3** of companies will make no changes to total rewards next year. 64% will maintain their equity approach, 67% variable pay, 66% benefits. (See in Chapter 2: Total rewards)
- **27%** of companies pay a premium to hire AI and ML engineering talent. 2x more than for any other skillset. (See in Chapter 4: Hiring trends)
- **5.6x** less equity for executives with no bonus. A leaner package overall, not one lever traded for another. (See in Chapter 3: Executive pay)
- **54%** of companies will lean on career development for retention. Compared to just 13% relying on pay adjustments. (See in Chapter 5: Retention)
- **20%** unadjusted gender pay gap, unchanged from last year. And the share of women in the tech workforce fell again, 38% to 36%. (See in Chapter 6: Pay equity)
- **52%** of companies are waiting for local law to act on EUPTD. Just 27% say they are on track with no significant barriers. (See in Chapter 6: Pay equity)

## Foreword: Pay is stabilising. Pay structures aren’t.

Every year, we combine insights from the Ravio compensation dataset (618,000 datapoints from 1,600 companies) with a survey of People and Reward leaders to bring you the latest hiring and compensation trends in European tech.

This year, hiring has slowed and reward teams have mostly left their approach to compensation untouched – total rewards approaches are largely holding steady, salary increase budgets are flat, and market benchmarks are growing modestly in most markets.

The one place the quiet doesn’t reach is AI and specialist talent. Everywhere else, the talent market’s settled down; there, the competition continues to be intense.

And quiet on the surface doesn’t mean quiet underneath.

Rather than reacting to big market swings, it’s been a year of strategic investment into existing reward programmes and processes – with the EU Pay Transparency Directive forcing teams to revisit compensation infrastructure (the top priority both this year and next), and AI tooling being embedded into how 90% of reward teams do their work.

So that’s the shape of the year: a busy back office, and a relatively calm talent market – aside from a need to build AI capabilities fast.

#### Top compensation priorities: last 12 months vs next 12 months

| Priority | Last 12 months | Next 12 months |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Building or improving compensation infrastructure (bands, frameworks, levels) | 47% | 36% |
| Managing comp spend under budget pressure | 38% | 35% |
| Preparing for EU Pay Transparency Directive compliance | 40% | 33% |
| Improving pay competitiveness against the market | 32% | 28% |
| Improving compensation tooling and processes | 18% | 22% |
| Attracting and retaining AI/technical talent | 15% | 21% |
| Improving total rewards offering (benefits, variable pay) | 11% | 15% |
| Improving or expanding equity programme | 9% | 13% |
| Reducing gender or other pay gaps | 11% | 10% |
| Developing internal comp team capability | 10% | 10% |
| Improving or expanding variable pay programme | 7% | 9% |
| Internal pay equity (fixing unexplained pay gaps) | 15% | 8% |
| Improving or expanding employee benefits offering | 7% | 7% |
| Preparing for M&A activity | 7% | 7% |
| Reducing headcount or restructuring | 8% | 5% |
| Scaling headcount rapidly | 4% | 5% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026 | Respondents chose their top 3 priorities_

**Survey response quotes**

> Standardisation of processes with an AI-first mindset – whilst ensuring our workforce doesn’t become more expensive because of AI – is where our team is heading in 2027.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Post-EUPTD, it will take time and effort to manage all cases after the directive is implemented. We expect this to be a big focus for the first year, until the dust settles.
>
> – Survey respondent

> We need to manage increasing salary expectations from candidates and internal talent, while at the same time optimising costs.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Colleagues benchmarking using AI with inappropriate data is a real concern for us heading into 2027.
>
> – Survey respondent

> We need to redo our whole levelling, compensation philosophy, and plan as we’ve scaled beyond early foundations – so that’s our biggest task.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Keeping up with frontier AI labs and big tech companies’ salaries and equity offering is our biggest challenge – from a revenue perspective we’re far from competing, but we fight for the same talent.
>
> – Survey respondent

## Chapter 1: Salary trends

IC pay is climbing steadily across Europe. Senior Manager pay is less predictable, with large movements in some markets, whilst others saw single-digit growth or declines depending on role.

- **20.8%** of employees received an in-role pay rise
- **4.2%** median in-role increase
- **21.8%** median increase on promotion

### Salary index: Market benchmark movement 2023-6

Salary growth continues across roles, but the pattern differs by level. Mid-level IC (P3) pay is rising fairly consistently across markets (1-8% growth), but Senior Manager (M3) growth is far more uneven – UK benchmarks rose 12-16% across all three roles, while Software Engineering M3 pay fell in the Netherlands (-2.4%) and France (-4.9%).

For how AI Engineering benchmarks compare to these figures, see Chapter 4.

#### Median base salary by level, 2023 to 2026

**Software Engineering – Market, P3 (mid-level IC)**

In the past 12 months, P3 (mid-level IC) Software Engineering salaries grew modestly in every market, from +0.7% in Sweden to +6.2% in Spain. M3 (Senior Manager) growth was far more mixed – the UK saw the strongest increase (+15.2%), while the Netherlands (-2.4%) and France (-4.9%) both saw declines.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | £63,500 | £68,900 (+8.5%) | £70,000 (+1.6%) | £74,000 (+5.7%) |
| Germany | £60,200 | £63,300 (+5.1%) | £64,500 (+1.9%) | £67,300 (+4.3%) |
| Netherlands | £61,600 | £62,700 (+1.8%) | £63,700 (+1.6%) | £65,000 (+2.0%) |
| France | £53,900 | £56,400 (+4.6%) | £57,100 (+1.2%) | £58,200 (+1.9%) |
| Spain | £46,600 | £48,100 (+3.2%) | £48,600 (+1.0%) | £51,600 (+6.2%) |
| Sweden | £48,400 | £56,600 (+16.9%) | £59,700 (+5.5%) | £60,100 (+0.7%) |

**Software Engineering – Market, M3 (Senior Manager)**

In the past 12 months, P3 (mid-level IC) Software Engineering salaries grew modestly in every market, from +0.7% in Sweden to +6.2% in Spain. M3 (Senior Manager) growth was far more mixed – the UK saw the strongest increase (+15.2%), while the Netherlands (-2.4%) and France (-4.9%) both saw declines.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | £108,700 | £109,900 (+1.1%) | £110,200 (+0.3%) | £126,900 (+15.2%) |
| Germany | £94,700 | £93,100 (-1.7%) | £97,300 (+4.5%) | £99,200 (+2.0%) |
| Netherlands | £95,600 | £94,200 (-1.5%) | £95,800 (+1.7%) | £93,500 (-2.4%) |
| France | £81,600 | £79,400 (-2.7%) | £83,700 (+5.4%) | £79,600 (-4.9%) |
| Spain | £76,000 | £69,800 (-8.2%) | £72,600 (+4.0%) | £76,700 (+5.6%) |
| Sweden | £73,500 | £79,500 (+8.2%) | £84,900 (+6.8%) | £84,800 (-0.1%) |

**Software Engineering – Stage, P3 (mid-level IC)**

In the past 12 months, P3 (mid-level IC) Software Engineering salaries grew modestly in every market, from +0.7% in Sweden to +6.2% in Spain. M3 (Senior Manager) growth was far more mixed – the UK saw the strongest increase (+15.2%), while the Netherlands (-2.4%) and France (-4.9%) both saw declines.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | £60,900 | £61,900 (+1.6%) | £62,900 (+1.6%) | £70,800 (+12.6%) |
| Growth-stage | £64,600 | £67,000 (+3.7%) | £68,500 (+2.2%) | £73,900 (+7.9%) |
| Late-stage | £67,600 | £71,100 (+5.2%) | £72,500 (+2.0%) | £76,100 (+5.0%) |

**Software Engineering – Stage, M3 (Senior Manager)**

In the past 12 months, P3 (mid-level IC) Software Engineering salaries grew modestly in every market, from +0.7% in Sweden to +6.2% in Spain. M3 (Senior Manager) growth was far more mixed – the UK saw the strongest increase (+15.2%), while the Netherlands (-2.4%) and France (-4.9%) both saw declines.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | £96,900 | £92,900 (-4.1%) | £94,500 (+1.7%) | £108,400 (+14.7%) |
| Growth-stage | £105,900 | £109,900 (+3.8%) | £111,600 (+1.5%) | £129,200 (+15.8%) |
| Late-stage | £117,100 | £121,900 (+4.1%) | £124,000 (+1.7%) | £131,000 (+5.6%) |

**Product Management – Market, P3 (mid-level IC)**

Product Management P3 salaries grew modestly this year, from +0.8% in the Netherlands to +6.6% in Spain – in line with Software Engineering. M3 growth ran higher in most markets, led by the UK (+11.9%) and Spain (+7.3%), with Sweden the exception at +0.7%.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | £61,900 | £65,900 (+6.5%) | £67,000 (+1.7%) | £69,000 (+3.0%) |
| Germany | £59,300 | £61,500 (+3.7%) | £62,200 (+1.1%) | £64,700 (+4.0%) |
| Netherlands | £60,700 | £60,100 (-1.0%) | £61,200 (+1.8%) | £61,700 (+0.8%) |
| France | £53,100 | £54,200 (+2.1%) | £55,400 (+2.2%) | £57,400 (+3.6%) |
| Spain | £45,800 | £46,500 (+1.5%) | £47,000 (+1.1%) | £50,100 (+6.6%) |
| Sweden | £48,000 | £54,100 (+12.7%) | £57,100 (+5.5%) | £59,800 (+4.7%) |

**Product Management – Market, M3 (Senior Manager)**

Product Management P3 salaries grew modestly this year, from +0.8% in the Netherlands to +6.6% in Spain – in line with Software Engineering. M3 growth ran higher in most markets, led by the UK (+11.9%) and Spain (+7.3%), with Sweden the exception at +0.7%.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | £103,700 | £106,300 (+2.5%) | £109,100 (+2.6%) | £122,100 (+11.9%) |
| Germany | £88,800 | £89,000 (+0.2%) | £91,400 (+2.7%) | £95,200 (+4.2%) |
| Netherlands | £91,000 | £90,000 (-1.1%) | £92,600 (+2.9%) | £97,400 (+5.2%) |
| France | £77,100 | £76,200 (-1.2%) | £78,400 (+2.9%) | £81,000 (+3.3%) |
| Spain | £69,800 | £66,900 (-4.2%) | £68,700 (+2.7%) | £73,700 (+7.3%) |
| Sweden | £71,300 | £75,400 (+5.8%) | £80,500 (+6.8%) | £81,100 (+0.7%) |

**Product Management – Stage, P3 (mid-level IC)**

Product Management P3 salaries grew modestly this year, from +0.8% in the Netherlands to +6.6% in Spain – in line with Software Engineering. M3 growth ran higher in most markets, led by the UK (+11.9%) and Spain (+7.3%), with Sweden the exception at +0.7%.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | £60,100 | £60,300 (+0.3%) | £61,400 (+1.8%) | £67,100 (+9.3%) |
| Growth-stage | £63,100 | £64,900 (+2.9%) | £66,400 (+2.3%) | £69,800 (+5.1%) |
| Late-stage | £66,100 | £68,300 (+3.3%) | £69,900 (+2.3%) | £72,500 (+3.7%) |

**Product Management – Stage, M3 (Senior Manager)**

Product Management P3 salaries grew modestly this year, from +0.8% in the Netherlands to +6.6% in Spain – in line with Software Engineering. M3 growth ran higher in most markets, led by the UK (+11.9%) and Spain (+7.3%), with Sweden the exception at +0.7%.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | £91,700 | £85,800 (-6.4%) | £87,600 (+2.1%) | £102,500 (+17.0%) |
| Growth-stage | £101,200 | £101,200 (0%) | £103,900 (+2.7%) | £121,000 (+16.5%) |
| Late-stage | £110,000 | £113,600 (+3.3%) | £117,200 (+3.2%) | £131,500 (+12.2%) |

**Direct sales – Market, P3 (mid-level IC)**

Direct Sales saw the biggest benchmark jumps of the three roles this year, driven by the UK – P3 pay rose 12.7% and M3 pay 16.2%. Elsewhere, growth was steadier at 1-8% for both levels, with the Netherlands leading P3 growth (+7.5%) and France leading M3 (+5.4%).

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | £50,100 | £51,500 (+2.8%) | £52,800 (+2.5%) | £59,500 (+12.7%) |
| Germany | £47,500 | £49,000 (+3.2%) | £50,300 (+2.7%) | £50,700 (+0.8%) |
| Netherlands | £50,000 | £48,900 (-2.2%) | £49,300 (+0.8%) | £53,000 (+7.5%) |
| France | £43,400 | £43,000 (-0.9%) | £44,100 (+2.6%) | £45,700 (+3.6%) |
| Spain | £38,000 | £37,800 (-0.5%) | £38,700 (+2.4%) | £39,200 (+1.3%) |
| Sweden | £40,700 | £44,100 (+8.4%) | £46,700 (+5.9%) | £48,300 (+3.4%) |

**Direct sales – Market, M3 (Senior Manager)**

Direct Sales saw the biggest benchmark jumps of the three roles this year, driven by the UK – P3 pay rose 12.7% and M3 pay 16.2%. Elsewhere, growth was steadier at 1-8% for both levels, with the Netherlands leading P3 growth (+7.5%) and France leading M3 (+5.4%).

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | £88,400 | £88,900 (+0.6%) | £90,700 (+2.0%) | £105,400 (+16.2%) |
| Germany | £77,000 | £76,700 (-0.4%) | £78,500 (+2.3%) | £80,600 (+2.7%) |
| Netherlands | £78,900 | £75,400 (-4.4%) | £77,900 (+3.3%) | £81,600 (+4.7%) |
| France | £69,500 | £64,300 (-7.5%) | £66,500 (+3.4%) | £70,100 (+5.4%) |
| Spain | £63,100 | £57,900 (-8.2%) | £59,800 (+3.3%) | £60,300 (+0.8%) |
| Sweden | £63,900 | £65,600 (+2.7%) | £70,700 (+7.8%) | £73,300 (+3.7%) |

**Direct sales – Stage, P3 (mid-level IC)**

Direct Sales saw the biggest benchmark jumps of the three roles this year, driven by the UK – P3 pay rose 12.7% and M3 pay 16.2%. Elsewhere, growth was steadier at 1-8% for both levels, with the Netherlands leading P3 growth (+7.5%) and France leading M3 (+5.4%).

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | £49,000 | £46,600 (-4.9%) | £47,600 (+2.1%) | £58,900 (+23.7%) |
| Growth-stage | £51,400 | £51,800 (+0.8%) | £53,200 (+2.7%) | £62,800 (+18.0%) |
| Late-stage | £52,500 | £55,000 (+4.8%) | £56,400 (+2.5%) | £60,700 (+7.6%) |

**Direct sales – Stage, M3 (Senior Manager)**

Direct Sales saw the biggest benchmark jumps of the three roles this year, driven by the UK – P3 pay rose 12.7% and M3 pay 16.2%. Elsewhere, growth was steadier at 1-8% for both levels, with the Netherlands leading P3 growth (+7.5%) and France leading M3 (+5.4%).

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | £77,800 | £71,800 (-7.7%) | £73,600 (+2.5%) | £92,600 (+25.8%) |
| Growth-stage | £87,000 | £82,900 (-4.7%) | £84,900 (+2.4%) | £104,500 (+23.1%) |
| Late-stage | £94,000 | £94,400 (+0.4%) | £97,100 (+2.9%) | £105,300 (+8.4%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2023-2026_

> “What I’m seeing is a significant shift in the European tech talent market. Ten years ago, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria were still largely viewed as outsourcing destinations, where companies could access strong technical talent at a lower cost. But in 2026, in highly skilled areas such as AI or developer tooling, salary expectations have caught up with more established markets like Germany.”
>
> – Alexandra Stoica, Head of People (expert clip: “Where Europe’s talent markets are converging”)

> “There used to be a real ceiling on cash comp by stage, but I’m now seeing seed-stage salaries that compete with Series B. It’s partly a hot VC market, and partly a conviction you can build a company with far fewer people who are compensated accordingly.”
>
> – Daniel Illes, Portfolio Talent Director, Atomico

> “With pay transparency coming, you can’t underpay new hires anymore even if the market is employer-favourable – you’d create a salary gap you can’t sustain long-term. So ironically, that legislation is actually keeping salaries up a little, even as the economy softens.”
>
> – Petra Skoglund, Strategic HR Advisor

> “A lot of companies aren’t growing their software development teams anymore. They’re keeping the team they have and increasing efficiency through AI instead – so the role is only going to get smaller and less needed.”
>
> – Petra Skoglund, Strategic HR Advisor

> “For engineers equity has become the real bargaining chip in the process. It’s become the go-to leverage point in negotiations.”
>
> – Michelle Cheng, European Talent, Bessemer Venture Partners

> “Every tech company right now needs disruptive change to their product with AI. A great product manager who understands product-market fit and can drive the company forward might be the most strategically important role there is at the moment.”
>
> – Petra Skoglund, Strategic HR Advisor

**Need salary insights for a different role, level, or location?** Get three free benchmarks, on Ravio.

[Get three free benchmarks](https://ravio.com/get-3-benchmarks)

### Benchmarking strategy

### Geographic pay

56% of companies localise salaries to each market using local benchmarks, and a further 10% apply a geographic pay differential – together, two-thirds are actively adjusting pay by location rather than paying one global rate.

> “One very savvy founder raised a real concern with me recently: if we localise pay, what stops people moving country just to get a higher salary? If you support those relocations it’s an administrative burden, and your people might start focusing more on optimising their pay than their work.”
>
> – Carolin Schneider, People & Culture Strategist, The ppl.Kickstarter (expert clip: “The hidden cost of localising pay”)

> “Internal mobility can solve a lot of the tension with paying differently per location. Giving people the choice to apply for roles in a different location, that may have a higher cost of living, helps people feel that they have choice, rather than feeling stuck.”
>
> – Amanda Moore, Reward Consultant (expert clip: “Why internal mobility eases location pay tension”)

#### Does employee pay reflect location?

| Approach | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Yes – we localise salaries to each market using local benchmarks | 56% |
| Yes – we apply a geographic pay differential (% adjustment based on location) | 10% |
| No – we pay all employees the same regardless of location | 10% |
| Mixed – we localise for some roles or functions but not all | 9% |
| Yes – we use a tiered system, grouping locations with similar market rates together | 6% |
| Not applicable – all employees are based in the same location | 4% |
| Other | 3% |
| Yes – we use a cost-of-living adjustment | 1% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

### Market positioning

Just under two-thirds of European tech companies (63%) say that they primarily target the market median for base salaries, with the next most popular choice being the 75th percentile (12% of companies) – meeting the market remains the default for pay positioning.

> “The market data you buy is one data point, not the truth. I always tell clients: take market data as an orientation, but define your own bands based on your own logic and business strategy. If you’re totally off market you’ll see the early signals through hiring.”
>
> – Alexandra Edl, HR Consultant, Edl Consulting AG (expert clip: “Market data as an orientation, not the truth”)

#### What target percentile do you primarily use?

| Target percentile | % of companies |
| --- | --- |
| 10th | 1% |
| 25th | 4% |
| 30th | 1% |
| 40th | 2% |
| 50th | 63% |
| 60th | 9% |
| 70th | 2% |
| 75th | 12% |
| 80th | 4% |
| 90th | 1% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Peer group trends**

- **18%** of companies under 100 employees target the 75th percentile, against 4% overall
- **72%** of public companies sit on the 50th percentile, and 66% of PE-backed ones – the hardest skew of any group
- **76%** of Dutch companies target the 50th percentile, against 63% overall

> “Early on, companies throw money at the people they need – it’s a gut-feeling, get this person now approach. That comes back to bite you later, when employees start asking uncomfortable questions and you need to bring in structure and consistency on top of all those ad hoc decisions.”
>
> – Carolin Schneider, People & Culture Strategist, The ppl.Kickstarter (expert clip: “Why early ad hoc pay decisions come back to bite”)

> “Your first 50 employees make or break your company. It’s not a general 9-to-5 role – people go above and beyond, take a chance on you as much as you take a chance on them – and that extra effort needs to be rewarded, so I’m not surprised to see higher pay positioning.”
>
> – Alexandra Stoica, Head of People (expert clip: “Why the first 50 employees are paid differently”)

### Market positioning – per role

Whilst the market median is the most common positioning, many companies use different target percentiles across their workforce. Over a third (35%) target higher for engineering/technical roles, and a fifth (20%) for leadership roles – with most saying this is down to talent scarcity and role criticality.

#### Does your target percentile differ for some roles?

| Answer | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No, we apply the same target across the board | 46% |
| Yes, we target higher for engineering/technical roles | 35% |
| Yes, we target higher for leadership/senior roles | 20% |
| Yes, we target higher for commercial/revenue-generating roles | 10% |
| Yes, for other roles (please specify) | 10% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026 | Multiple answers allowed_

### Salary increases

Overall, 2026 salary increases tell a story of broader reach – more employees received a raise (20.8%, up from 15.7%). The median increase itself is stable, just slightly lower than it was last year (4.2%, down from 5.0%) – and with most companies planning flat budgets for next cycle, that looks set to continue.

> **20.8%** of employees in European tech received an in-role pay rise this year, up from 15.7% last year.

### In-role salary increases: employee eligibility

Eligibility continued to rise this year, with a sharp increase (+32.5%) to 20.8% of employees in European tech receiving a pay rise within their existing role in 2026.

Across locations, Germany saw the biggest increase in eligibility with double the amount of employees receiving an increase compared to last year, and late-stage companies saw the sharpest acceleration of any funding stage (+62.6%).

> **A third more employees got a pay rise this year, up from 16% to 21% of the workforce – most likely for employees in Sweden (35%) growth-stage companies (24%), Engineering teams (26%), and Product teams (24%).**

#### Proportion of employees who received a salary increase

**Proportion of employees who received a salary increase, European tech (all)**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Europe (all) | 14.1% | 15.7% (+11.3%) | 20.8% (+32.5%) |

**Proportion of employees who received a salary increase, by location**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 19.9% | 22.7% (+14.1%) | 28.9% (+27.3%) |
| Germany | 5.6% | 7.0% (+25.0%) | 14.3% (+104.3%) |
| Netherlands | 13.5% | 14.0% (+3.7%) | 23.3% (+66.4%) |
| France | 8.5% | 8.7% (+2.4%) | 10.8% (+24.1%) |
| Spain | 15.0% | 17.4% (+16.0%) | 13.5% (-22.4%) |
| Sweden | 23.8% | 25.4% (+6.7%) | 35.2% (+38.6%) |

**Proportion of employees who received a salary increase, by function**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Commercial | 12.7% | 13.5% (+6.3%) | 18.2% (+34.8%) |
| Engineering | 17.8% | 20.7% (+16.3%) | 25.6% (+23.7%) |
| Marketing | 15.1% | 16.8% (+11.3%) | 20.6% (+22.6%) |
| People | 13.3% | 14.6% (+9.8%) | 20.3% (+39.0%) |
| Product | 16.5% | 19.5% (+18.2%) | 23.7% (+21.5%) |
| Operations | 10.1% | 11.3% (+11.9%) | 16.8% (+48.7%) |

**Proportion of employees who received a salary increase, by company stage**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage | 14.1% | 18.4% (+30.5%) | 19.9% (+8.2%) |
| Growth-stage | 17.9% | 20.8% (+16.2%) | 23.8% (+14.4%) |
| Late-stage | 11.4% | 12.3% (+7.9%) | 20.0% (+62.6%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

> “To me, broader eligibility but a flat increase size suggests a pay equity clean-up. Companies reviewed their structures ahead of the transparency directive, found people sitting below their own band, and so fixing that means small corrections to many people.”
>
> – Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin

> “One of the biggest reasons we’ll see more increases is the EU Pay Transparency Directive – we’ve started budgeting for market and internal equity adjustments on top of merit increases, running internal pay equity analysis and identifying who needs adjusting proactively now, to avoid more cost and exposure further down the line.”
>
> – Paula Aragon, Senior Total Rewards Specialist, Storyblok

> “There’s a very German reason for the jump in pay increases there. Until the end of 2024, Germany had a tax-free inflation bonus with no social security on it. That instrument expired, so the same money now runs through salary instead – so it’s mostly a measurement effect rather than a behaviour change.”
>
> – Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin

### In-role salary increases: amount

Across European tech, the median in-role salary increase in the past year is 4.2%, down slightly from 5.0% the year before but still within the typical range of 3-5%.

#### Median in-role salary increase

**Overall**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Europe (all) | 5.0% (-5.7%) | 5.0% (0%) | 4.2% (-16.0%) |

**Market**

Spain is the outlier by location, the only market where the typical increase grew this year (+25%). Netherlands saw the largest decrease (-37%), from having the highest typical increase last year at 6.3% down to a more typical 4.0% this year.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 6.1% | 5.0% (-18.0%) | 4.0% (-20.0%) |
| Germany | 5.7% | 5.0% (-12.3%) | 4.5% (-10.0%) |
| Netherlands | 6.0% | 6.3% (+5.0%) | 4.0% (-36.5%) |
| France | 5.1% | 4.9% (-3.9%) | 4.0% (-18.4%) |
| Spain | 5.0% | 4.0% (-20.0%) | 5.0% (+25.0%) |
| Sweden | 4.1% | 4.1% (0%) | 3.2% (-22.0%) |

**Function**

Every function tracked in this report saw a decrease in typical salary increase size this year, in-line with the overall trend, and increase sizes are similar across all roles – companies don’t seem to change their salary increase approach for specific functions.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales & Relationship Management | 4.5% (-10.0%) | 4.7% (+4.4%) | 4.2% (-10.6%) |
| Engineering | 5.0% (-15.3%) | 5.0% (0%) | 4.4% (-12.0%) |
| Marketing | 5.0% (-16.7%) | 5.0% (0%) | 4.4% (-12.0%) |
| People | 5.1% (-15.0%) | 5.3% (+3.9%) | 5.0% (-5.7%) |
| Product | 5.0% (0%) | 5.2% (+4.0%) | 4.5% (-13.5%) |
| Operations | 6.1% | 4.4% (-27.9%) | 4.0% (-9.1%) |

**Stage**

After dropping significantly last year, the typical salary increase size at early-stage companies has increased this year, now in-line with growth-stage. Late-stage companies now have the smallest increase sizes overall – perhaps needing to spread budget over a larger headcount.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early (pre-seed, seed) | 6.5% (+6.6%) | 3.0% (-53.8%) | 5.0% (+66.7%) |
| Growth (series A-B) | 5.0% (-12.3%) | 5.0% (0%) | 5.0% (0%) |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | 4.9% (-7.5%) | 5.5% (+12.2%) | 4.0% (-27.3%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

### What factors lead to a salary increase

Most companies weight individual performance (85%) and market adjustments (68%) most heavily when deciding who gets an increase and how much, well ahead of business performance (49%) or retention risk (39%).

#### What factors contribute to salary increase decisions?

| Factor | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Individual performance | 85% |
| Market adjustments | 68% |
| Business performance | 49% |
| Retention risk | 39% |
| Inflation / cost of living increases | 33% |
| Team performance | 11% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026 | Multiple answers allowed_

**Across the peer groups**

- **100%** of German respondents factor individual performance into increases, a much more performance-driven culture
- **100%** It’s the same in fintech – 100% factor individual performance into pay increases (though this may be skewed by smaller sample sizes).

> “100% of German companies factoring performance into pay reviews isn’t because they’re more rigorous about pay for performance, it’s because they need a justification on file. If you differentiate pay, you need a documented, defensible reason, and individual performance is the safest label. Whether there's a calibrated process behind it is another question, and in the Series A to C companies I work with, often there isn't.”
>
> – Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin

Given the focus on performance, it’s unsurprising that most companies factor in higher pay increases for their top-performers – typically at least 2% higher.

#### What do you expect the typical salary increase to be at your next cycle?

| Employee type | Median expected increase | Expected interquartile range (P25-P75) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Typical increase (non-promotion, all employees) | 4% | 3.0% – 5.0% |
| Top-performer increase (non-promotion) | 6% | 5.0% – 10.0% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026 | Multiple answers allowed_

**Across the peer groups**

- **10.9%** expected median increase for top-performers at companies under 100 employees, compared to 6.0% overall and 5.5% at companies with 2,000+ headcount.

> “We give a recommendation based on performance rating and where someone sits in their band, with a deliberate ratio between ratings – if an average performer gets one increase, a top performer might get double that. Managers can flex it, but the instruction is that the differentiation needs to be real.”
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt (expert clip: “Making pay differentiation real”)

### Salary increase outlook – what are teams planning for the next 12 months?

Most companies are keeping pay increase budgets flat (43%) or are still unsure (22%). Only 6% are increasing significantly. Where budgets are moving, it's overwhelmingly about cost control (28%) and business performance (11%), not inflation or regulation.

#### Will your salary increase budget change for the next cycle?

| Answer | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Staying flat | 43% |
| Unsure | 22% |
| Increasing slightly (1-10%) | 17% |
| Decreasing slightly (1-10%) | 9% |
| Increasing significantly (+10%) | 6% |
| Decreasing significantly (-10%) | 3% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

#### What’s driving the budget change?

| Driver | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Cost control | 28% |
| Other / miscellaneous | 24% |
| Market competitiveness pressure | 16% |
| Business performance | 11% |
| Organisational change (M&A, restructuring, new leadership) | 8% |
| Talent retention needs | 5% |
| Inflation / cost of living | 3% |
| Regulatory change (EU Pay Transparency Directive) | 2% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026 | Multiple answers allowed_

**Survey response quotes**

> We're increasing our budget significantly this year, giving a typical 50% increase to more than half our workforce, specifically as a retention play.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Our budget is decreasing slightly this year – it comes down to budget availability and company revenue. Nearly everyone will still get something, but it'll be a modest 2%.
>
> – Survey respondent

> We expect more off-cycle adjustments this year due to pay equity analysis which will be taking place, so we’ll need to save budget for that.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Our budget is staying flat this year due to budget constraints, but we're still giving a typical 4% increase to almost everyone.
>
> – Survey respondent

> We're increasing our budget slightly this year to help with attracting and retaining talent, but it's targeted increases for a small slice of the workforce, not an across-the-board move.
>
> – Survey respondent

> The pool is decreasing significantly this year as budget just isn't available – though where we are giving increases, they're still substantial, around 10%, just for a much smaller group.
>
> – Survey respondent

### Promotion increases

### Promotion rate

In the last 12 months, the promotion rate in European tech was 2.7%, up from 2.4% the year before (+12.5%) – a modest increase in the number of employees receiving a promotion, after two flat years.

The biggest move across all breakdowns is Germany, where the promotion rate more than doubled this year (+110.0%, from a low base of 1.0%).

Late-stage companies also saw a higher increase in promotion rates (+50.0%), reversing a decline the year before. Both Germany and late stage companies were the two areas where salary increase eligibility increased the most too – both seeing significantly higher in-role and more promotion increases this year.

#### Promotion rate

**Overall**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Europe (all) | 2.4% | 2.4% (0%) | 2.7% (+12.5%) |

**Market**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 3.3% | 3.6% (+9.1%) | 3.6% (0%) |
| Germany | 1.0% | 1.0% (0%) | 2.1% (+110.0%) |
| Netherlands | 1.6% | 1.7% (+6.2%) | 2.2% (+29.4%) |
| France | 1.0% | 1.2% (+20.0%) | 1.6% (+33.3%) |
| Spain | 3.6% | 3.1% (-13.9%) | 2.3% (-25.8%) |
| Sweden | 2.1% | 2.1% (0%) | 3.0% (+42.9%) |

**Function**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Commercial | 2.7% | 2.7% (0%) | 2.8% (+3.7%) |
| Engineering | 2.3% | 2.4% (+4.3%) | 2.6% (+8.3%) |
| Marketing | 2.5% | 2.1% (-16.0%) | 2.2% (+4.8%) |
| People | 2.1% | 2.6% (+23.8%) | 3.1% (+19.2%) |
| Product | 2.6% | 2.6% (0%) | 2.9% (+11.5%) |
| Operations | 1.6% | 1.4% (-12.5%) | 1.7% (+21.4%) |

**Stage**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early (pre-seed, seed) | 3.0% | 3.4% (+13.3%) | 3.6% (+5.9%) |
| Growth (series A-B) | 3.5% | 3.9% (+11.4%) | 3.6% (-7.7%) |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | 1.9% | 1.8% (-5.3%) | 2.7% (+50.0%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

### Promotion-based salary increases

The median salary increase employees receive at promotion is 21.8%, up slightly from 21.2% the year before (+2.8%) – continuing the slow upward trend from previous years.

#### Median promotion-based salary increase

**Overall**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Europe (all) | 20.6% | 21.2% (+2.9%) | 21.8% (+2.8%) |

**Market**

France stands out in terms of locations – the median promotion increase jumped to 31.2% this year (+45.8%), by far the largest promotion-based increase of any market.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 20.4% | 20.9% (+2.5%) | 21.4% (+2.4%) |
| Germany | 21.6% | 23.6% (+9.3%) | 22.6% (-4.2%) |
| Netherlands | 20.0% | 21.7% (+8.5%) | 20.6% (-5.1%) |
| France | 20.8% | 21.4% (+2.9%) | 31.2% (+45.8%) |
| Spain | 21.2% | 21.2% (0%) | 20.1% (-5.2%) |
| Sweden | 21.0% | 21.8% (+3.8%) | 21.2% (-2.8%) |

**Function**

The size of promotion increases continues to be broadly similar across functions. This year employees in the Operations (24.0%) and Commercial (22.7%) functions have received the highest promotion increases.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Commercial | 21.1% | 21.4% (+1.4%) | 22.7% (+6.1%) |
| Engineering | 20.4% | 20.5% (+0.5%) | 20.7% (+1.0%) |
| Marketing | 20.7% | 20.8% (+0.5%) | 20.7% (-0.5%) |
| People | 20.4% | 22.1% (+8.3%) | 20.5% (-7.2%) |
| Product | 20.0% | 22.1% (+10.5%) | 20.4% (-7.7%) |
| Operations | 20.0% | 21.2% (+6.0%) | 24.0% (+13.2%) |

**Stage**

Late-stage companies increased promotion-based raises the most this year (+8.9%), consistent with the higher promotion rate seen above – late-stage promotions are both more frequent and more generous than last year.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early (pre-seed, seed) | 20.0% | 20.0% (0%) | 20.0% (0%) |
| Growth (series A-B) | 20.5% | 21.7% (+5.9%) | 21.0% (-3.2%) |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | 20.5% | 21.4% (+4.4%) | 23.3% (+8.9%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

Most companies lack a structured approach to promotion increases, with 78% deciding case-by-case, and where there is structure, it’s most common (13%) to promote to the bottom of the next band.

#### How do you approach promotion-based salary increases?

| Approach | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Case-by-case decision | 78% |
| All promotions moved to the bottom of the next salary band | 13% |
| All promotions get the same % increase (e.g. 20%) | 5% |
| All promotions moved to the midpoint of the next salary band | 5% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> “Moving everyone promoted to the bottom of the new band sounds neat, but it can mean a strong performer only gets a 5% bump while their peers doing the same job are paid 15-20% more. It shouldn’t be the only way you consider doing it.”
>
> – Amanda Moore, Reward Consultant (expert clip: “Why promoting to the bottom of the band can backfire”)

> “There should be an overall approach for promotion increases. We work from a set range depending on the type of promotion, with guardrails like a minimum comp-ratio in the new band and calibration to protect pay equity. But every person comes from a different starting point and context, so on top of that range managers can decide to be more aggressive for a specific case. It’s not pure improvisation, but it’s not rigid either.”
>
> – Paula Aragon, Senior Total Rewards Specialist, Storyblok

### Promotion outlook – plans for the next 12 months

Nearly half of companies (49%) aren't changing their approach to promotions this year – but where they are, it's mostly about investing in career development (28%) and tightening who qualifies (27%).

#### What proportion of your workforce do you expect to receive a promotion next cycle?

| % of workforce expected to be promoted | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| 0% | 4% |
| 1-5% | 35% |
| 6-10% | 40% |
| 11-15% | 16% |
| 16-20% | 3% |
| >20% | 1% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

#### Are you changing your approach to promotions this year?

| Change | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No change | 49% |
| Investing more in career development and L&D | 28% |
| Tightening eligibility (fewer promotions) | 27% |
| Increasing typical promotion increase size | 4% |
| Relaxing eligibility (more promotions) | 4% |
| Decreasing typical promotion increase size | 2% |
| Investing less in career development and L&D | 1% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

## Chapter 2: Total rewards trends

Total rewards packages are holding steady this year – 64% of companies have no planned changes to equity, 67% for variable pay, and 66% for benefits. Small areas of movement include: increased equity eligibility for all employees in some markets, less variety in working models overall, and new variable pay programmes being introduced.

- **64%** are not changing their equity approach
- **67%** are not changing variable pay
- **66%** are not changing benefits

### Equity trends

### Equity eligibility

[Equity](https://ravio.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-equity-compensation-for-startups) eligibility is diverging by market rather than moving in one direction.

UK companies are most likely to offer equity to all employees (58% vs 39% overall) and the Netherlands has seen a 3% increase in equity granted to all.

But France and Sweden look like they’re pulling back: all-employee eligibility down 2.3% and 2.9% respectively, whilst select-roles only and leadership roles only both rose in both locations.

> "Hand-picking who gets equity and who doesn’t can create issues down the line. At some point, you have to explain why one colleague gets equity and another doesn’t, which can create a feeling of a ‘two-class’ employee base. If we want people to feel equally valued and part of the company’s success, giving equity to everyone is the stronger approach."
>
> – Liis Reitz, Compensation Specialist, SMG Swiss Marketplace Group AG

> "At early stage, I'm seeing broader equity eligibility again. Valuations are high, so there's equity to give away in terms of £ value, and startups also aren't planning to hire hundreds of people down the line in the same way they used to, so the dilution worry is lower."
>
> – Daniel Illes, Portfolio Talent Director, Atomico

> "With more secondaries happening, candidates and employees are seeing real value in equity now. Suddenly someone they know took money off the table, and it clicks that equity is actually real, so they’re optimising for it."
>
> – Leah Sutton, Chief Portfolio Talent Officer, Balderton Capital

#### Equity eligibility

**Equity eligibility, Europe (all)**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 38% | 27% | 11% | 25% |
| 2025 | 39% (+2.6%) | 27% (0%) | 11.3% (+2.7%) | 22.3% (-10.8%) |
| 2026 | 38.7% (-0.8%) | 27.2% (+0.7%) | 11.7% (+3.5%) | 22.7% (+1.8%) |

**Equity eligibility, UK**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 50% | 21% | 10% | 20% |
| 2025 | 58% (+16.0%) | 21% (0%) | 9% (-10.0%) | 12% (-40.0%) |
| 2026 | 58% (0%) | 21% (0%) | 9% (0%) | 12% (0%) |

**Equity eligibility, Germany**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 37% | 29% | 9% | 25% |
| 2025 | 38% (+2.7%) | 31% (+6.9%) | 9% (0%) | 22% (-12.0%) |
| 2026 | 38% (0%) | 30% (-3.2%) | 9% (0%) | 23% (+4.5%) |

**Equity eligibility, Netherlands**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 26% | 27% | 13% | 34% |
| 2025 | 31% (+19.2%) | 29% (+7.4%) | 10% (-23.1%) | 29% (-14.7%) |
| 2026 | 32% (+3.2%) | 28% (-3.4%) | 10% (0%) | 30% (+3.4%) |

**Equity eligibility, France**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 46% | 21% | 11% | 22% |
| 2025 | 43% (-6.5%) | 23% (+9.5%) | 11% (0%) | 22% (0%) |
| 2026 | 42% (-2.3%) | 24% (+4.3%) | 12% (+9.1%) | 22% (0%) |

**Equity eligibility, Spain**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 29% | 32% | 11% | 29% |
| 2025 | 30% (+3.4%) | 26% (-18.8%) | 16% (+45.5%) | 28% (-3.4%) |
| 2026 | 29% (-3.3%) | 27% (+3.8%) | 16% (0%) | 29% (+3.6%) |

**Equity eligibility, Sweden**

| Year | All employees | Select roles only | Leadership and founders only | No employees |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 37% | 31% | 9% | 22% |
| 2025 | 34% (-8.1%) | 32% (+3.2%) | 13% (+44.4%) | 21% (-4.5%) |
| 2026 | 33% (-2.9%) | 33% (+3.1%) | 14% (+7.7%) | 20% (-4.8%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

### Equity design

Among companies that offer equity, there's no dominant approach to sizing grants – fixed share/option counts (36%) and percentage-of-salary (31%) are the most common, but case-by-case decisions (22%) is a significant portion too.

The lack of a clear default suggests that equity remains less structured and more bespoke than other elements of compensation in most companies.

> **There's still no ‘typical’ method for sizing an equity grant – approaches vary, and 22% take it case-by-case.**

> “What matters isn’t just the percentage of equity you’re offering today, but what that equity could realistically be worth at exit. Increasingly, executives are reverse-engineering their equity ask from the outcome they want to achieve.”
>
> – Chloe Paramatti, Talent Partner, EQT Ventures

> "At an earlier stage it's common to give equity to everyone, but once a company gets bigger, it's worth reviewing – both how much you can realistically grant, and whether equity is actually a driver of motivation for a given role. For a lot of roles, it just isn't."
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt (expert clip: “When equity stops motivating”)

#### How are equity grants sized?

| Grant sizing approach | Proportion of companies |
| --- | --- |
| As a fixed number of shares/options regardless of salary | 36% |
| As a % of base salary | 31% |
| Varies case-by-case, no fixed approach | 22% |
| As a lump sum value, converted to shares at grant | 11% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Across the peer groups**

- **63%** of UK companies size grants as a % of base salary, against 31% overall – a far more formulaic approach
- **37%** of public companies use a lump sum converted to shares at grant, against 11% overall
- **48%** of late-stage startups favour a fixed number of shares or options, against 36% overall

### Equity outlook – what are companies changing in the next 12 months?

Most companies are leaving their equity approach untouched (64%).

Where it is changing, the direction of travel is still towards broader eligibility (11%) – but only just, with some companies also planning to restrict eligibility (10%). Less companies are making changes to their equity design itself.

#### Are you changing your approach to equity in the next 12 months?

| Change | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No change | 64% |
| Extending equity to more employees | 11% |
| Restricting equity to fewer employees | 10% |
| Changing how grants or vesting are structured | 7% |
| Increasing the amount granted per employee | 4% |
| Offering employee equity for the first time | 2% |
| Decreasing the amount granted per employee | 2% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

### Variable pay and bonus plans

### Variable pay benchmarks

Across European tech as a whole, the median variable pay amount is 11.1% of base salary – with a range of 7.2% at P25 to 25.0% at P75.

Variable pay prevalence and size of course differ sharply by role – it’s near-universal and substantial for Direct Sales and some other commercial roles, but much less likely elsewhere.

#### Variable pay as a share of base salary

**Variable pay as a share of base salary, European tech (all)**

| Cut | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| European tech (all) | 7.2% | 11.1% | 25.0% |

**Variable pay as a share of base salary, by role**

Looking at a few common commercial roles, Direct Sales carries by far the largest variable component (66.7% of base at median), more than 1.5x Sales Development (45.5%). Customer Success sits well below both (17.6%).

| Cut | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Direct Sales | 42.9% | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| Sales Development (SDR) | 34.6% | 45.5% | 66.7% |
| Customer Success | 10.0% | 17.6% | 25.0% |
| Software Engineering | 4.5% | 9.0% | 11.1% |

**Variable pay as a share of base salary, by career track**

Variable pay grows with seniority, as expected – Management carries the largest median variable component (16.3%) and the widest range, well ahead of Professional and Support.

| Cut | Companies represented (n) | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Management | 191 | 8.7% | 16.3% | 25.0% |
| Professional | 239 | 6.7% | 11.1% | 25.0% |
| Support | 83 | 5.0% | 8.7% | 10.8% |

**Variable pay as a share of base salary, by location**

Variable pay is relatively consistent across locations, but both the median benchmark in both Spain (17.7% of base salary) and Sweden (20% of base salary) is considerably higher than the Europe-wide median of 11.1%, suggesting these markets lean more heavily on variable components for their total compensation packages.

| Cut | Companies represented (n) | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sweden | 24 | 7.1% | 20.0% | 50.0% |
| Netherlands | 61 | 8.3% | 14.0% | 31.5% |
| Spain | 60 | 8.0% | 17.7% | 60.9% |
| Germany | 90 | 5.2% | 10.6% | 25.0% |
| UK | 163 | 9.1% | 11.1% | 25.9% |
| France | 53 | 7.5% | 11.1% | 17.6% |

**Variable pay as a share of base salary, by company stage**

Growth-stage companies offer the largest variable component (14.2% median), ahead of both early-stage (11.5%) and late-stage (11.1%) – variable pay looks to peak in the middle of the funding journey rather than scaling consistently with company maturity.

| Cut | Companies represented (n) | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage (pre-seed, seed) | 16 | 8.3% | 11.5% | 50.0% |
| Growth-stage (series A & B) | 104 | 7.6% | 14.2% | 33.3% |
| Late-stage (series C+, IPO) | 63 | 10.0% | 11.1% | 27.5% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

> "Talking to people at other companies, a lot of the time variable pay isn't actually variable – it's more or less guaranteed, because the goal-setting doesn't really differentiate on results. Performance management is the hardest part to get right if you actually want a variable pay programme that works."
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt

### What forms of variable pay are offered?

Commission remains the default for commercial roles (76%), but individual and company performance bonuses run a close second and third (49% and 48%) – and equity-based bonuses are the exception, not the rule (18% or lower).

#### Which forms of variable pay do you offer?

| Form of variable pay | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Commission for sales/commercial roles | 76% |
| Cash bonus programme based on individual performance | 49% |
| Cash bonus programme based on company performance | 48% |
| On-call or shift-based payments (e.g. for engineering/ops) | 46% |
| One-off discretionary performance bonuses, decided case-by-case | 37% |
| Sign-on bonuses | 31% |
| Retention bonuses | 28% |
| Equity bonus programme based on individual performance | 18% |
| Cash bonus programme based on team performance | 11% |
| Equity bonus programme based on company performance | 11% |
| We don't offer variable pay | 3% |
| Equity bonus programme based on team performance | 0% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

For bonus schemes, a combination of individual and company performance (36%) is the most common way to size payouts.

#### How do you determine bonus payout size?

| Approach | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| A combination of individual and company performance | 36% |
| Fixed percentage of salary, same for everyone at a given level | 19% |
| We don't offer bonuses | 15% |
| Company performance against targets determines the % payout | 14% |
| Individual performance rating determines the % payout | 10% |
| Manager discretion, no formula | 7% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

### Variable pay outlook – what are companies changing in the next 12 months?

Most companies are not planning to change their approach to variable compensation next year (67%), but those that are are mostly looking to further lean on variable as a lever, adding in new variable programmes (19%).

#### Do you plan to change your approach to variable pay?

| Change | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No change | 67% |
| Yes, introducing new forms of variable pay (e.g. new bonus schemes) | 19% |
| Yes, increasing the proportion of pay that's variable | 7% |
| Other – please specify | 6% |
| Yes, removing some forms of variable pay | 3% |
| Yes, decreasing the proportion of pay that's variable | 2% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> "I'm actually starting to see a trend towards less bonuses, partly because they're time-consuming to administer and partly because they're hard to explain objectively and fairly. But for roles where you can define measurable targets, I think there's an underused opportunity to incentivise people that way."
>
> – Alexandra Edl, HR Consultant, Edl Consulting AG (expert clip: “The quiet retreat from bonuses”)

> "I think we'll see more use of variable pay because of pay transparency. If you keep base salary similar and put performance differentiation on variable pay, you have a much clearer explanation for why pay differs – it's linked to each person’s results, rather than baked into base salary."
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt (expert clip: “Why transparency pushes pay onto variable”)

> “We’re introducing a business impact bonus for next year, specifically for people making a big contribution – and we’re particularly rewarding those using AI to create impact across the company.”
>
> – Paula Aragon, Senior Total Rewards Specialist, Storyblok

### Benefit and working model trends

### Employee benefits outlook – what are companies changing in the next 12 months?

Most companies will maintain their current approach to [employee benefits](https://ravio.com/blog/employee-benefits-guide) (66%). For those that will make changes, adding additional benefits is the most common trend (20%) – with responses particularly highlighting the need to be more market competitive on benefits.

#### Is your benefits offering changing in the next 12 months?

| Change | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No change | 66% |
| Increasing the offering | 20% |
| Making benefits more personalised/flexible (e.g. benefits allowance) | 11% |
| Reducing the offering | 3% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> "Many companies are way too fixed, looking blindly at the sum benefits value per employee, when they should be looking at the experience of each individual. A mature company moves towards an experience-based approach to benefits rather than one-size-fits-all."
>
> – Petra Skoglund, Strategic HR Advisor

Where changes are planned, aligning with the market (24%) is the most common theme, followed by specific new benefits such as pension, parental, and health cover (15%).

#### What benefits changes are planned?

| Theme | % of respondents (free text) |
| --- | --- |
| Aligning with market / competitiveness / benchmarking | 24% |
| Specific new benefit added (pension, parental, health, etc.) | 15% |
| Personalisation / flexibility / employee choice | 12% |
| Wellbeing (mental health, financial wellbeing) | 12% |
| Geographic expansion (new office / country / EOR transition) | 12% |
| Retention / attraction driver | 5% |
| M&A / harmonisation across the business | 2% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

### Employee benefits package benchmarks in 2026

Wellness, family support, and pension are the three areas companies flagged as this year's focus for making changes benefits. Across all three, there are clear differences in typical approach per market.

#### Wellness benefits

Sweden and Germany stand out for fitness allowances specifically (89% and 61% respectively) while France (53%) and Spain (56%) are the only markets where a majority of companies offer no wellness benefit at all.

#### Wellness benefits offered, by market

| Location | None | Employee Assistant Programme (EAP) | Fitness allowance / gym membership | Mental health subscriptions | Company wellbeing coach | Health days (e.g. mental, menstrual) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 25% | 36% | 30% | 30% | 7% | 12% |
| Germany | 24% | 9% | 61% | 26% | 6% | 6% |
| Netherlands | 39% | 5% | 29% | 33% | 13% | 5% |
| France | 53% | 2% | 33% | 19% | 8% | 2% |
| Spain | 56% | 4% | 30% | 20% | 5% | 5% |
| Sweden | 6% | 9% | 89% | 25% | 4% | 3% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

#### Family benefits

The Netherlands and Sweden have the lowest offering of family benefits (90% and 87% of companies offering none, respectively) – but likely reflecting already-strong statutory parental leave provision in these locations, highlighting the importance of a per-location view of employee benefits.

#### Family benefits offered, by market

| Location | None | Childcare salary sacrifice | Childcare assistance | Fertility support | Other |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 63% | 14% | 3% | 5% | 4% |
| Germany | 74% | 4% | 8% | 1% | 7% |
| Netherlands | 90% | 0% | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| France | 81% | 0% | 11% | 5% | 3% |
| Spain | 72% | 9% | 9% | 3% | 6% |
| Sweden | 87% | 2% | 4% | 0% | 3% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

#### Pension contributions

Pension approaches vary considerably per location because of local laws. In the UK, almost half of companies (46%) offer enhanced pension contributions that go beyond the 4% statutory minimum – 5% being the next most common at 20%.

#### UK pension contributions offered

| Location | Statutory minimum | 4% | 5% | 6% | 7% | 8% | 9% | 10% |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 54% | 11% | 20% | 5% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 4% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

### Working models

Overall, working model variety contracted this year, with the UK, Germany, and Netherlands all seeing declines across onsite, remote, and hybrid alike – meaning fewer companies offering multiple models at once.

Spain and Sweden bucked the trend in opposite directions: Spain polarised toward the extremes (fully-remote +100%, fully-onsite +129%, hybrid down), while Sweden consolidated around hybrid (+8%).

#### Working model split, 2025 vs 2026

**Working model split, UK**

| Working model | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fully onsite | 14% | 12% (-14%) |
| Fully remote | 39% | 32% (-18%) |
| Hybrid | 85% | 72% (-15%) |

**Working model split, Germany**

| Working model | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fully onsite | 27% | 24% (-11%) |
| Fully remote | 48% | 41% (-15%) |
| Hybrid | 89% | 81% (-9%) |

**Working model split, Netherlands**

| Working model | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fully onsite | 16% | 10% (-38%) |
| Fully remote | 14% | 13% (-7%) |
| Hybrid | 96% | 89% (-7%) |

**Working model split, France**

| Working model | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fully onsite | 15% | 15% (0%) |
| Fully remote | 35% | 34% (-3%) |
| Hybrid | 96% | 96% (0%) |

**Working model split, Spain**

| Working model | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fully onsite | 7% | 16% (+129%) |
| Fully remote | 25% | 50% (+100%) |
| Hybrid | 88% | 73% (-17%) |

**Working model split, Sweden**

| Working model | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fully onsite | 19% | 9% (-53%) |
| Fully remote | 49% | 22% (-55%) |
| Hybrid | 75% | 81% (+8%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2025-2026_

> “Changes in the US political and immigration landscape are making Europe increasingly attractive, and talent from Northern Europe is increasingly relocating south too. Spain is a particularly popular relocation destination, and as skilled international talent relocates there, more companies are expanding their presence too, strengthening Spain’s position as a serious up and coming tech talent market.”
>
> – Alexandra Stoica, Head of People (expert clip: “Why Europe is pulling talent south”)

> “I’m a massive advocate for giving people the flexibility to work in the way that’s most productive for them. That flexibility is hugely valuable for the individual, but it benefits the company just as much – when people can work in a way that suits them best, you’re much more likely to get the best out of them too.”
>
> – Liis Reitz, Compensation Specialist, SMG Swiss Marketplace Group AG

> "Some companies tried going back to fully on-site and failed – and some of their best people left because they simply couldn't work like that – so now there's this settling around hybrid flexibility."
>
> – Petra Skoglund, Strategic HR Advisor

### How many WFH days are hybrid employees allowed?

WFH allowances shifted only modestly this year, but the direction was consistent: fewer office days (1-2 per week) gained ground in most markets. Even so, giving hybrid employees the flexibility to work from home 5 days per week remains by far the most common arrangement everywhere, ranging from 34% in France to 63% in Germany.

#### Working-from-home days allowed for hybrid employees

**Working-from-home days allowed, UK**

| Days at home | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 day | 3% | 4% (+33%) |
| 2 days | 14% | 16% (+14%) |
| 3 days | 20% | 20% (0%) |
| 4 days | 8% | 8% (0%) |
| 5 days | 55% | 52% (-5%) |

**Working-from-home days allowed, Germany**

| Days at home | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 day | 2% | 3% (+50%) |
| 2 days | 13% | 15% (+15%) |
| 3 days | 12% | 14% (+17%) |
| 4 days | 7% | 5% (-29%) |
| 5 days | 66% | 63% (-5%) |

**Working-from-home days allowed, Netherlands**

| Days at home | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 day | 2% | 3% (+50%) |
| 2 days | 23% | 22% (-4%) |
| 3 days | 24% | 26% (+8%) |
| 4 days | 8% | 9% (+13%) |
| 5 days | 43% | 40% (-7%) |

**Working-from-home days allowed, France**

| Days at home | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 day | 3% | 5% (+67%) |
| 2 days | 25% | 29% (+16%) |
| 3 days | 30% | 27% (-10%) |
| 4 days | 5% | 5% (0%) |
| 5 days | 37% | 34% (-8%) |

**Working-from-home days allowed, Spain**

| Days at home | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 day | 6% | 4% (-33%) |
| 2 days | 11% | 13% (+18%) |
| 3 days | 16% | 20% (+25%) |
| 4 days | 7% | 7% (0%) |
| 5 days | 60% | 56% (-7%) |

**Working-from-home days allowed, Sweden**

| Days at home | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 day | 5% | 3% (-40%) |
| 2 days | 27% | 32% (+19%) |
| 3 days | 10% | 8% (-20%) |
| 4 days | 4% | 4% (0%) |
| 5 days | 54% | 53% (-2%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2025-2026_

### Working model outlook – what are companies planning for the next 12 months?

Fully remote companies are the most settled – 100% report no change planned (of 16 respondents). Hybrid companies are most likely to be making changes, overwhelmingly moving toward more office time (17%), not greater flexibility (4%).

> **100% of fully remote teams say they have no changes to working models planned, but 17% of hybrid companies are still pushing towards more office time**

#### Are you changing your working model in the next 12 months?

| Working model | No change | Moving to more office time | Moving to more flexibility or remote |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hybrid | 79% | 17% | 4% |
| Mixed, varies by role or team | 90% | 10% | 0% |
| Fully in-office | 92% | 8% | 0% |
| Fully remote | 100% | 0% | 0% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Want total rewards data for a different role, level, or location?** See market norms for every benefit type, side-by-side with your own package.

[Book a demo](https://ravio.com/get-started)

## Feature: How is AI impacting rewards roles?

AI is speeding up specific tasks like policy writing and job levelling, not replacing large-scale processes like pay reviews. People and Reward teams are also managing the wider workforce reshaping AI is causing – tech teams are feeling the impact hardest, but companies are leaning on upskilling far more than job cuts.

- **90%** of Reward Leaders use AI in their work
- **44%** use it to write comp policies and guidelines
- **46%** have restructured in response to AI

## How are Reward teams using AI?

AI is reshaping reward teams’ own ways of working, with 90% of Reward Leaders now using AI in their day-to-day work in some capacity.

Writing comp policies or guidelines (44%) and [job levelling](https://ravio.com/blog/how-to-create-a-best-practice-job-levelling-framework) (43%) are the most common uses of AI in reward today – with running [end-to-end comp review processes](https://ravio.com/blog/complete-guide-to-compensation-reviews) (8%) and planning for comp reviews (18%) still rare. This suggests that AI is currently augmenting or speeding up specific tasks, rather than fully replacing processes.

> **Reward teams are using AI for the small stuff, not the big calls. 90% use it to some extent day to day, but only 8% trust it to run a full comp review end to end.**

#### How are you using AI?

| Use case | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Writing comp policies or guidelines | 44% |
| Job levelling and job description creation | 43% |
| Market benchmarking and salary data analysis | 38% |
| Exploring but not implemented | 29% |
| Reporting and analytics/dashboards | 28% |
| Building or maintaining salary bands/frameworks | 27% |
| Pay equity analysis and gap identification | 22% |
| Employee-facing communications | 22% |
| Modelling pay review scenarios and budget planning | 18% |
| Manager-facing tooling | 15% |
| Not at all | 10% |
| Running end-to-end comp review processes | 8% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> "I use AI a lot as a thinking partner – bouncing ideas around, challenging my thinking, and even asking it to criticise its own work so I can keep improving the output through feedback loops. With employee data, though, I’m a lot more cautious, even with strong security measures in place. For me, there’s a clear line between using AI to think better and giving it access to data it simply doesn’t need."
>
> – Liis Reitz, Compensation Specialist, SMG Swiss Marketplace Group AG

> “What’s missing when you let AI make comp decisions is context and judgment. It can run the formula, like Excel, but it doesn’t have the nuance of why someone sits where they do in the band, or why we need to retain a specific person. That’s what should shape our recommendation, not just the numbers.”
>
> – Paula Aragon, Senior Total Rewards Specialist, Storyblok

> “Consistency is the real opportunity I see for AI in reward decisions. If you’re clear upfront about the criteria, evidence, and principles that determine what performance expectations get a raise, how much, and why, AI can help apply that thinking more consistently – reducing the discretion and variability that can creep into reward decisions.”
>
> – JooBee Yeow, Director of People & Organisation, Notion Capital

> “Using AI for a comp review is still rare. Putting pay data into a new tool opens a data security conversation that would take longer than the implementation – and often that data isn’t in a state that you could neatly pass over anyway. Then there's accountability too: those pay decisions have to survive being read back to the employee, explained to a works council, possibly even defended in court."
>
> – Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin

> "I think privacy is a real blocker for a lot of companies currently: you have to be confident the tools you're using keep data where it needs to stay. Scale matters too: doing this for a handful of employees is a very different problem to doing it for thousands."
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt (expert clip: “Privacy and scale, the blockers for AI in reward”)

> "Writing documents and job levelling is more the entry-level way of using AI in reward. Our focus now is using it to build bespoke tools internally – whether that's to make our own team more efficient, to upgrade the experience for employees and managers, or to enforce consistent decisions across the organisation."
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt

## How is AI impacting workforce priorities?

AI is simultaneously impacting the functions and teams that HR and Reward Leaders support – 46% of companies have taken some restructuring action in response to AI adoption, and Engineering (78%) and Product (60%) are the most affected functions.

However, most companies (33%) are focusing on upskilling existing staff, rather than reducing headcount due to AI (15%).

> **AI is already cutting into headcount plans, Engineering and Product first. 46% of companies have taken restructuring action because of AI – but most are introducing upskilling rather than reducing headcount.**

#### Is AI impacting your workforce?

| Impact | % of companies |
| --- | --- |
| Yes, introduced upskilling programmes for existing staff | 33% |
| Yes, redeployed staff to new responsibilities | 16% |
| Yes, reduced headcount in affected roles | 15% |
| Yes, changed hiring plans for affected roles | 12% |
| No restructuring related to AI | 54% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

#### Which functions are being impacted by AI adoption?

| Function | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Engineering | 78% |
| Product | 60% |
| Data | 51% |
| Marketing | 47% |
| Commercial/Sales | 45% |
| People/HR | 45% |
| Operations | 42% |
| Finance | 38% |
| Legal | 33% |
| Entry-level roles across all functions | 29% |
| Reward/Compensation | 24% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> "Learning to use AI in your own work should be a priority for everyone right now. This moment won't last forever, there'll be a point where a lot of people are already experts, and if you're still just learning, it might be too late to get the job you actually want."
>
> – Andreea Lupu, Compensation & Benefits Architect, Meaningful (expert clip: “Why learning AI now is the priority”)

> “A lot of AI adoption is still piecemeal – person by person, tool by tool or function by function. What’s often missing is the strategic question from leadership: what are we actually trying to achieve, and where can AI help us get there? AI isn’t the strategy. Start with the business outcome, then decide how AI changes the work, the capabilities you need and where you invest.”
>
> – JooBee Yeow, Director of People & Organisation, Notion Capital

> “In Reward, simple, repetitive tasks – job mapping, market research – used to take days and now take minutes. What remains is the consultative side, supporting managers to actually make the right decisions. I think companies will ultimately need fewer people to do the same amount of work, and we’ll also need to push juniors to build real expertise and critical thinking rather than just relying on what the tool tells you.”
>
> – Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt (expert clip: “What's left when AI does the routine work”)

**Put your comp data where your AI tools already are** Ravio's MCP server lets your team query live benchmarks directly from the assistant they use every day.

[Explore Ravio](https://ravio.com/get-started)

## Chapter 3: Executive compensation trends

Executive compensation is a story of variance – pay mix and benchmarks shift substantially depending on function, industry, company size, and whether you're a founder or hired exec (founders take 21% lower base salaries). Most companies don't plan to change their approach to executive pay this year.

- **£216k** median CEO base salary
- **68%** of VPs receive a bonus
- **2.4x** higher equity grants for founder executives

### Executive salaries

#### Executive salary benchmarks

**Executive salary benchmarks, by function**

Across Europe, CEO base salary is, naturally, the highest C-level salary (£216,300 median) – but Chief Product Officers are close behind at a median salary of £214,100, followed by CROs and COOs.

At VP level, VP of Sales commands the highest salary across functions (£185,000) – whilst also being a role highly likely to have a significant variable component too.

Interestingly, some roles see very little salary differentiation between VP and C-level. Some of this is driven by sample mix across different funding stages and company sizes – and, as we’ll see later, C-level compensation packages are larger overall, supplemented by much higher levels of bonus and equity.

| Function | E1 (VP) | E3 (C-level) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CEO | n/a | £216,300 |
| Engineering | £176,000 | £174,600 |
| Product | £156,000 | £214,100 |
| Sales | £185,000 | £200,000 |
| Marketing | £160,000 | £167,500 |
| People | £150,200 | £174,600 |
| Finance | £162,400 | £189,000 |
| Operations | £166,200 | £198,700 |

**Executive salary benchmarks, by location**

UK & Ireland have the highest executive salaries at both VP and C-level (£185,000 / £222,500), with Spain a surprisingly close second (£180,200 / £198,300) given the lower general market salaries Spain has. France sees very little difference between VP and C-level salaries, but this is likely due to sample size.

| Location | E1 (VP) | E3 (C-level) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| UK & Ireland | £185,000 | £222,500 |
| Germany | £169,900 | £180,200 |
| Netherlands | £171,700 | £193,100 |
| France | £125,200 | £128,700 |
| Spain | £180,200 | £198,300 |
| Nordics & Baltics | £105,600 | £151,000 |

**Executive salary benchmarks, by funding stage**

Executive salaries are considerably higher at late-stage and public companies, well ahead of early-stage and PE-backed companies – exec pay scales clearly with company maturity and revenue.

The significantly lower VP salary for PE-backed executives isn’t in-line with what we’d expect across the market – likely due to the sample size being smaller, much more nuanced, and with much higher variety than overall compensation benchmarks, due to the nature of the roles.

| Funding stage | E1 (VP) | E3 (C-level) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Early (seed to series B) | £150,000 | £175,000 |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | £207,200 | £216,500 |
| Private equity backed | £157,500 | £200,000 |
| Public | £210,500 | £224,000 |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026 | Median (P50), GBP | E1 = VP, E3 = C-level_

### CEO salary benchmarks

#### CEO base salary by market and funding stage

**CEO base salary, by location**

When we look at CEO salaries specifically per location the pattern holds apart from the Netherlands – at £236,000, Dutch CEO pay sits far closer to UK & Ireland (£248,500) than to Germany (£193,100), despite Dutch VP and C-level averages trailing both markets in the section above.

| Location | CEO median |
| --- | --- |
| UK & Ireland | £248,500 |
| Germany | £193,100 |
| Netherlands | £236,000 |
| Nordics & Baltics | £169,000 |

**CEO base salary, by funding stage**

Executives at public companies are paid the highest across all functions, but for CEOs specifically it’s PE-backed companies that pay CEOs the most (£261,200) – narrowly ahead of public (£257,500), and over £60,000 above early-stage.

| Funding stage | CEO median |
| --- | --- |
| Early (seed to series B) | £196,600 |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | £219,900 |
| Private equity backed | £261,200 |
| Public | £257,500 |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026 | Median (P50), GBP_

### Executive variable pay

### Executive variable pay prevalence

Overall, 91% of VPs (E1) in European tech get a bonus, and 89% of C-suite executives do – and it’s particularly likely for executives to receive a bonus in private equity backed and public companies.

Interestingly, where companies don't offer a bonus, it's not that they're compensating with a different lever – rather, those companies tend to run a more conservative package overall. We found that executives without a bonus also report significantly less annual equity (£45k median, vs £250k for those who do get a bonus).

> **Missing out on a bonus means missing out everywhere. Executives without one also get 5.6x less equity – a leaner package overall.**

#### Proportion of executives who receive a bonus

| Level | Overall | Early-stage (seed to series B) | Late-stage (series C+) | Private equity backed | Public |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| VP (E1) | 91% | 89% | 86% | 100% | 95% |
| C-level (E3) | 89% | 88% | 73% | 100% | 100% |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

> “When you’re competing for best-in-class talent, you can’t just pull one lever in isolation – if you need to stretch in one area, you’re less likely to pull back entirely in another to compensate. Candidates are evaluating the whole opportunity, not one component of it.”
>
> – Franky Roberts, Head of Talent & Community, Evantic Capital

### Executive variable pay benchmarks

#### Median executive variable pay (% of base salary)

**Median executive variable pay, by function**

Sales has by far the highest bonus of any function, at both VP (95%) and C-level (58%). Outside Sales, Operations, Finance, and Marketing carry the next-highest bonus opportunity at C-level, while Engineering has the lowest bonus opportunity of any function at both levels (15% VP, 17% C-level).

| Function | E1 (VP) | E3 (C-level) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CEO | n/a | 34% |
| Engineering | 15% | 17% |
| Product | 19% | 25% |
| Sales | 95% | 58% |
| Marketing | 25% | 25% |
| People | 20% | 25% |
| Finance | 25% | 28% |
| Operations | 28% | 33% |

**Median executive variable pay, by location**

German C-level executives tend to receive a higher bonus (45%), while the UK leads at VP level (39%). France has the lowest bonus opportunity of any market at C-level (20%), and Spain the lowest at VP level (13%).

| Location | E1 (VP) | E3 (C-level) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 39% | 38% |
| Germany | 26% | 45% |
| Netherlands | 25% | 31% |
| France | 25% | 20% |
| Spain | 13% | 40% |
| Nordics & Baltics | 30% | 25% |

**Median executive variable pay, by funding stage**

Public company VPs have by far the largest bonus of any cut (63% of base) – nearly double every other stage. At C-level, public (40%) and PE-backed (38%) companies offer the largest bonus, both significantly ahead of early and late-stage companies (26% and 32%).

| Funding stage | E1 (VP) | E3 (C-level) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Early (pre-seed, seed) | 25% | 25% |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | 25% | 32% |
| Private equity backed | 30% | 38% |
| Public | 63% | 40% |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

### Bonus criterion – what are executives targeted on?

The general pattern across functions is that VP bonuses lean individual, while C-level bonuses lean company-wide – Finance is the sharpest example, swinging from 67% individual-targeted at VP to 47% company-targeted at CFO level.

Late-stage VPs are the most individually targeted of any cut (62%), while C-level bonus criteria stay largely dependent on company targets across every funding stage (51-63%) regardless of maturity

#### Bonus criteria: company, individual, or a combination

**Bonus criteria – CEO**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | – | 78% |
| Individual targets | – | 3% |
| Combination | – | 19% |

**Bonus criteria – Engineering**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 57% | 37% |
| Individual targets | 14% | 6% |
| Combination | 29% | 57% |

**Bonus criteria – Product**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 21% | 45% |
| Individual targets | 21% | 0% |
| Combination | 58% | 55% |

**Bonus criteria – Sales**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 8% | 45% |
| Individual targets | 53% | 14% |
| Combination | 39% | 39% |

**Bonus criteria – Marketing**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 17% | 52% |
| Individual targets | 17% | 3% |
| Combination | 65% | 45% |

**Bonus criteria – People**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 50% | 67% |
| Individual targets | 10% | 6% |
| Combination | 40% | 27% |

**Bonus criteria – Finance**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 0% | 47% |
| Individual targets | 67% | 12% |
| Combination | 33% | 42% |

**Bonus criteria – Operations**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 55% | 59% |
| Individual targets | 36% | 4% |
| Combination | 9% | 37% |

**Bonus criteria – Early-stage (pre-seed, seed)**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 27% | 53% |
| Individual targets | 27% | 10% |
| Combination | 46% | 37% |

**Bonus criteria – Late-stage (Series C+, IPO)**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 12% | 51% |
| Individual targets | 62% | 10% |
| Combination | 26% | 40% |

**Bonus criteria – Private equity backed**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 23% | 63% |
| Individual targets | 18% | 6% |
| Combination | 59% | 31% |

**Bonus criteria – Public**

| Criterion | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Company targets | 19% | 58% |
| Individual targets | 31% | 5% |
| Combination | 50% | 37% |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

> “More calibrated candidates aren’t just looking at the bonus target, they want to understand the actual levers they need to pull to hit it – what’s realistic, what’s the structure, what do they actually need to do to realise that number. A random target that feels hard to reach is off-putting.”
>
> – Franky Roberts, Head of Talent & Community, Evantic Capital

### Executive equity

### Executive equity grant values

76% of executives receive an equity grant across the European tech industry – slightly more likely at VP level (77% of executives) compared to C-level (75%).

#### Executive median equity grant value

**Function**

CEO grants are highest at C-level (£247,200 median). At VP level, Marketing has the highest equity grants (£74,000) – with VP Product, Sales, and Finance close behind.

| Cut | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CEO | n/a | £247,200 |
| Engineering | £37,300 | £80,000 |
| Product | £64,600 | £200,000 |
| Sales | £61,300 | £120,900 |
| Marketing | £74,000 | £73,900 |
| People | £13,400 | £59,900 |
| Finance | £60,200 | £99,100 |
| Operations | £37,500 | £125,000 |

**Market**

Germany has among the lowest VP equity grants of any market (£32,200), but the highest C-level grants (£182,400), well ahead of the UK (£150,000).

| Cut | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| UK & Ireland | £60,300 | £150,000 |
| Germany | £32,200 | £182,400 |
| Netherlands | £50,700 | £55,800 |
| Spain | £38,200 | £93,200 |
| Nordics & Baltics | £15,900 | £64,600 |
| France | Low data | £145,800 |

**Executive median equity grant value, by funding stage**

Grant values scale steeply with maturity in cash terms – late-stage executive equity grants (£102,400 VP / £219,800 C-level) run roughly 5x early-stage grants (£21,400 / £73,800), even though later-stage equity typically represents a much smaller ownership percentage.

| Cut | VP (E1) | C-level (E3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Early (pre-seed to series B) | £21,400 | £73,800 |
| Late (series C+, IPO) | £102,400 | £219,800 |
| Private equity backed | £54,200 | £143,100 |
| Public | £50,000 | £71,900 |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026 | Annualised equity grant value at point of award, GBP_

### Executive equity design

#### Equity vehicles for executives

Equity vehicles shift predictably with maturity – RSUs dominate at public companies (83% for VPs), while stock options remain the default earlier on.

The proportion of RSUs at public companies drops to 59% at C-level, with an increase in variety of vehicles, including a notable step-up in ordinary shares (6%, the only stage where this appears).

#### Equity vehicles used, by company stage

**VP (E1)**

| Equity vehicle | Overall | Early-stage (seed to series B) | Late-stage (series C+) | Private equity backed | Public |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) | 28% | 5% | 38% | 28% | 83% |
| Stock options: tax advantaged scheme | 27% | 44% | 15% | 22% | 14% |
| Stock options: non-tax advantaged scheme | 27% | 25% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
| Phantom / virtual shares | 9% | 17% | 3% | 17% | 0% |
| Growth / hurdle shares | 5% | 3% | 6% | 11% | 0% |
| Ordinary shares | 2% | 3% | 2% | 6% | 0% |
| Other | 2% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Management Incentive Plans (MIPs) | 0.3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Co-investment | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |

**C-level (E3)**

| Equity vehicle | Overall | Early-stage (seed to series B) | Late-stage (series C+) | Private equity backed | Public |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) | 10% | 2% | 6% | 13% | 59% |
| Stock options: tax advantaged scheme | 33% | 44% | 24% | 25% | 25% |
| Stock options: non-tax advantaged scheme | 31% | 40% | 45% | 11% | 9% |
| Phantom / virtual shares | 9% | 7% | 14% | 11% | 0% |
| Growth / hurdle shares | 11% | 5% | 7% | 28% | 0% |
| Ordinary shares | 2% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 6% |
| Other | 0.7% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| Management Incentive Plans (MIPs) | 1% | 0.6% | 0% | 2% | 0% |
| Co-investment | 2% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 0% |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

#### Equity vesting for executives

The standard 4-year time-based schedule dominates everywhere except private equity-backed companies, where it drops to just 41% for VPs – replaced largely by a mix of time-based and KPI-based vesting (35%, versus 1-2% at every other stage), reflecting PE's more return-focused ownership culture.

#### Most common equity vesting schedule, by company stage

**VP (E1)**

| Company stage | Time-based over 4 years | Time-based over 3 years | Time-based – other | Mix of time-based and KPI-based | Exit only | KPI-based – achievement of company KPIs | KPI-based – achievement of individual KPIs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Overall | 77% | 14% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 0.4% | 0% |
| Early-stage (seed to series B) | 88% | 7% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Late-stage (series C+) | 83% | 14% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Private equity backed | 41% | 6% | 6% | 35% | 6% | 6% | 0% |
| Public | 50% | 44% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |

**C-level (E3)**

| Company stage | Time-based over 4 years | Time-based over 3 years | Time-based – other | Mix of time-based and KPI-based | Exit only | KPI-based – achievement of company KPIs | KPI-based – achievement of individual KPIs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Overall | 54% | 17% | 12% | 5% | 8% | 4% | 0.2% |
| Early-stage (seed to series B) | 64% | 15% | 9% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 0.6% |
| Late-stage (series C+) | 77% | 8% | 8% | 0% | 5% | 3% | 0% |
| Private equity backed | 32% | 20% | 20% | 7% | 13% | 8% | 0% |
| Public | 30% | 52% | 9% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

> "For executives, I wouldn’t rely on time-based vesting alone. A meaningful part of the equity should be tied to value creation, whether that’s revenue, valuation milestones, or a successful exit.”
>
> – Chloe Paramatti, Talent Partner, EQT Ventures

Early-stage companies lean far more on quarterly vesting for VPs (36% vs 0% at late-stage) – late-stage vesting is almost entirely monthly (94%) or annual, perhaps using more frequent vesting events to keep pace with faster-changing cap tables.

#### Most common equity vesting cadence, by company stage

**VP (E1)**

| Company stage | Monthly | Quarterly | Annually | Bi-annually |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Overall | 79% | 14% | 5% | 2% |
| Early-stage (seed to series B) | 61% | 36% | 3% | 0% |
| Late-stage (series C+) | 94% | 0% | 6% | 0% |

**C-level (E3)**

| Company stage | Monthly | Quarterly | Annually | Bi-annually |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Overall | 64% | 8% | 22% | 6% |
| Early-stage (seed to series B) | 60% | 17% | 10% | 13% |
| Late-stage (series C+) | 71% | 0% | 29% | 0% |
| Private equity backed | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

### Founders vs hired executives

Founders take a clear cash-for-equity trade. Founder C-level base salary sits 21% below hired executives (£152,500 vs £193,900), and founders have essentially no bonus (0% median variable vs 33% for hired executives).

But, their annualised equity grants run 2.4x higher (£305,400 vs £125,000 median) – more than making up the difference if the company performs. These figures likely exclude founders’ original ownership stake, so their total equity is probably also far larger than this figure.

> **Founders take a 21% lower salary than hired executives, in exchange for a 2.4x bigger equity grant.**

#### Founder vs hired executive compensation

**Founder vs hired executive – Base salary**

Base salary, GBP

| Executive type | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Founder executives | £100,000 | £152,500 | £201,400 |
| Hired executives | £154,500 | £193,900 | £252,500 |

**Founder vs hired executive – Variable pay**

Variable pay, % of base salary

| Executive type | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Founder executives | 0% | 0% | 30% |
| Hired executives | 18% | 33% | 50% |

**Founder vs hired executive – Equity**

Annual equity grant value, GBP

| Executive type | P25 | Median (P50) | P75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Founder executives | £7,000 | £305,400 | £650,600 |
| Hired executives | £37,600 | £125,000 | £373,500 |

_Source: Ravio & Erevena dataset, 2026_

> "Founders understand the game, they know what being conservative on their own base salary signals to investors and to the market. Series B is usually where it evens out, once you've proven a repeatable go-to-market motion."
>
> – Daniel Illes, Portfolio Talent Director, Atomico

### Executive pay outlook – what are companies planning for the next 12 months?

61% of companies have no changes planned to executive pay – where they are moving, it's more about what bonuses are tied to (18%) and re-benchmarking to ensure market competitiveness (17%) than restructuring the pay mix itself.

#### Will you make executive compensation changes in the next 12 months?

| Change | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No changes planned | 61% |
| Changing what executive bonuses/variable pay are tied to (e.g. different performance metrics) | 18% |
| Re-benchmarking to ensure keeping up with the market | 17% |
| Increasing the proportion of variable in pay mix | 11% |
| Increasing the proportion of base salary in pay mix | 6% |
| Increasing the proportion of equity in pay mix | 6% |
| Changing executive equity vesting terms (e.g. shortening/lengthening periods, adding performance conditions) | 4% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> “You want a compensation philosophy and framework that’s explainable and that people can align behind – but you also need flexibility in the system for exceptional circumstances, so you’re not missing out on someone who could materially change the direction of the company.”
>
> – Franky Roberts, Head of Talent & Community, Evantic Capital

**Benchmark your executive team** Ravio covers executive compensation benchmarks for base salary, variable, and equity across more functions, markets and funding stages.

[Book a demo](https://ravio.com/get-started)

## Chapter 4: Hiring trends

Hiring slowed again this year, falling almost everywhere except AI and ML talent, where competition and pay premiums are still climbing. Most companies now plan to hold their hiring rate steady in 2027.

- **21.8%** hiring rate
- **53%** call conditions moderately competitive
- **27%** pay a premium for AI and ML engineering

## Hiring conditions

Most companies describe conditions as having been moderately competitive (53%) this year.

This tracks with the broader market: hiring hasn’t dried up, but the 2021-2023 frenzy is over, with both companies and candidates being more cautious.

What’s left is a more selective, two-speed market – cooler overall, but high demand for AI, cybersecurity, and senior engineering talent, which is exactly where this year’s data shows premiums and competition concentrated.

#### How would you describe hiring conditions this year?

| Condition | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Moderately competitive, some roles harder to fill than others | 53% |
| Balanced, broadly in line with previous years | 20% |
| Very competitive, candidates have strong leverage | 19% |
| Employer-favourable, good candidate supply | 7% |
| Highly employer-favourable, strong candidate supply across the board | 2% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Across the peer groups**

- **42%** of late-stage startups call the market very competitive, more than early-stage or public companies
- **40%** of cybersecurity companies say the same, the most competitive industry of any cut

> “Recruiting has slowed down across the board – except for anything with AI integrated, which is where most of the hiring is actually happening right now.”
>
> – Andreea Lupu, Compensation & Benefits Architect, Meaningful (expert clip: “Where hiring is still happening”)

> “It doesn’t surprise me that late-stage companies are seeing the most competitive conditions. They don’t hire for potential anymore, they hire for someone who’s already done that job at scale, and that’s the scarcest part of the offer. Plus, they have the least flexible offers: fixed bands, plus equity candidates now discount heavily because there's no visible IPO window.”
>
> – Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin

> “We're still seeing less junior hires too. It's short-sighted: if we don't hire early-career people, who's going to be working here in the future?”
>
> – Leah Sutton, Chief Portfolio Talent Officer, Balderton Capital

## Hiring rates

Hiring rates across European tech currently sit at 21.8%, down from 28.6% the year before (-24%) – continuing a steady decline from 2023’s 34.0%.

#### Hiring rate

**Hiring rate, European tech (all)**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| European tech (all) | 29.0% (-14.7%) | 28.6% (-1.4%) | 21.8% (-23.8%) |

**Hiring rate, by market**

Germany was the one market bucking the slowdown in 2025 (+2.8%, the only riser that year), but this has reversed in 2026 (-21%) – as Germany converges with the rest of the market’s decline in hiring. Hiring has been particularly slow in Sweden (13.0% hiring rate) and France (15.8%) this year.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 40.0% | 31.8% (-20.5%) | 22.6% (-28.9%) |
| Germany | 29.0% | 29.8% (+2.8%) | 23.6% (-20.8%) |
| Netherlands | 27.0% | 23.5% (-13.0%) | 17.9% (-23.8%) |
| France | 31.0% | 22.3% (-28.1%) | 15.8% (-29.1%) |
| Spain | 36.0% | 26.3% (-26.9%) | 21.5% (-18.3%) |
| Sweden | 25.0% | 16.5% (-34.0%) | 13.0% (-21.2%) |

**Hiring rate, by function**

Sales was the only function whose hiring rates grew in 2025 (+5.2%) before falling back this year (-28%), suggesting a temporary focus on sales talent which has now settled. Interestingly, Product (16.3% hiring rate) and Engineering (16.3%) are the two functions with the lowest hiring demand this year – though this may be more to do with employees seeking security and role stability rather than companies slowing hiring for these roles.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales & Relationship Management | 33.0% (-5.7%) | 34.7% (+5.2%) | 25.0% (-28.0%) |
| Engineering | 21.0% (-30.0%) | 20.7% (-1.4%) | 16.3% (-21.3%) |
| Marketing | 26.0% (-21.2%) | 21.8% (-16.2%) | 17.6% (-19.3%) |
| People | 28.0% (-6.7%) | 22.9% (-18.2%) | 17.6% (-23.1%) |
| Product | 24.0% (-22.6%) | 20.6% (-14.2%) | 16.3% (-20.9%) |
| Operations | 34.0% | 27.1% (-20.3%) | 20.5% (-24.4%) |

**Hiring rate, by company stage**

Early-stage companies have the highest hiring rate of any funding stage this year (25.0%) and growth and late-stage companies have seen the biggest drops in hiring – but rates are broadly similar across all stages.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage (pre-seed, seed) | 41.0% (-16.3%) | 26.7% (-34.9%) | 25.0% (-6.4%) |
| Growth-stage (series A & B) | 34.0% (-20.9%) | 29.5% (-13.2%) | 22.6% (-23.4%) |
| Late-stage (series C+, IPO) | 22.0% (-21.4%) | 27.8% (+26.4%) | 23.7% (-14.7%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

> “There's been a bit of a hiring correction over the last two years. After the first LLMs came out in 2023, companies saw an opportunity to slow hiring, but that hasn't fully come to fruition, because now it's clear that you still need humans to run the last mile.”
>
> – Michelle Cheng, European Talent, Bessemer Venture Partners

> “It’s a softer hiring market, and I’ve also seen time to hire increase recently – which is mostly down to approvals, with headcount decisions being made at a level higher than they were two years ago.”
>
> – Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin

**See how the market is changing in real-time with Ravio’s Live Market Insights** Hiring, retention, salary increases, and more.

[Book a demo](https://ravio.com/get-started)

## Hiring outlook – what are companies planning for the next 12 months?

It seems that the hiring market will look similar next year to this, with 42% prioritising maintaining their current hiring rate in the next year.

#### What is your hiring priority for the next 12 months?

| Priority | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Maintaining current hiring rate | 42% |
| Replacing leavers only, flat headcount | 32% |
| Increasing hiring rate | 22% |
| Pausing hiring entirely | 4% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

## Priority roles and skills

### Most hired roles

Software Engineer is the single most-hired role in European tech in terms, accounting for 12.2% of all hires in the last 12 months, with Direct Sales, Customer Support, SDR, and Customer Success rounding out the top five.

But Direct Sales commands the highest new-hire pay premium of the five (10.7%), more than double Software Engineer’s (4.0%), despite being hired less often, highlighting that whilst Software Engineers hold the highest hiring volume, they aren’t the most in-demand talent on the market.

#### Top 5 most hired roles, last 12 months

| Role | Percentage of total hires | New hire pay premium |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Software Engineer | 12.2% | +4.0% |
| Direct Sales | 7.2% | +10.7% |
| Customer Support | 4.8% | +1.1% |
| Sales Development Representative (SDR) | 4.3% | +2.1% |
| Customer Success | 3.8% | +3.0% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

> “For some companies, AI isn't leading to a pullback on engineering hiring – it's an accelerator. If I can make every engineer 25% more productive, I should have more of them, because then I'll get more done.”
>
> – Leah Sutton, Chief Portfolio Talent Officer, Balderton Capital

> “We're seeing sales being prioritised in our portfolio. Selling an agentic product is very different to selling traditional software, and only a small proportion of salespeople have actually done it before, so they're in-demand.”
>
> – Dennis Eriksson, Talent Director, Northzone

> “There's a lot of salespeople out there, but there's not a lot of amazing ones. Anthropic, OpenAI, other labs and heavily VC backed AI companies are aggressively acquiring sales talent, creating scarcity downstream – we're seeing large new-hire premiums for top sales talent across our portfolio.”
>
> – Ben Newsome, VP Talent & People, Cherry Ventures

### Roles with the biggest new hire pay premium

Engineering Management commands the largest actual pay premium this year, at 16.8%. Marketing Generalist and Administrative Services follow close behind, at 15.3% and 14.2%.

But, when we asked Reward Leaders which roles and skills their company is actively paying a premium to hire for, AI/ML engineering is the clear need at 27%, more than 2x the next most common premium role.

For companies that do pay more for AI skills, most build the premium into base salary (42%) or use separate market-rate bands (31%).

#### Top 5 roles by new hire pay premium

| Role | New hire premium vs market rate |
| --- | --- |
| Engineering Management (high-tech) | +16.8% |
| Marketing Generalist | +15.3% |
| Administrative Services | +14.2% |
| Research and Applied Sciences | +11.8% |
| Product Management | +9.4% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

#### Are you giving salary premiums for any specific roles or skill sets?

| Role / skillset | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No, we’re applying standard pay bands across all roles | 57% |
| AI/ML engineering roles | 27% |
| Software engineering (non-AI) | 12% |
| AI researcher | 10% |
| Data roles | 10% |
| Other AI roles e.g. Content Engineer, AI Product Manager, etc | 7% |
| Commercial/sales roles | 7% |
| Product roles | 7% |
| Other roles – please specify | 7% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Across the peer groups**

- **46%** of late-stage startups pay a premium for AI and ML roles, against 18% at public companies

> **AI/ML talent is the one hot pocket in a cooling hiring market. Hiring is down 24% overall, but AI Engineering commands a premium 2x more often than any other skill, especially at late-stage startups.**

#### How are you compensating for AI/AI-adjacent skills?

| Approach | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Base salary premium vs closest comparable role | 42% |
| Separate pay bands using market rates for specific AI roles/skills | 31% |
| Targeting a higher percentile against closest comparable role | 22% |
| Higher equity allocation | 3% |
| Other – please specify | 3% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> “We’re seeing a real focus on talent density – a willingness to pay more for a smaller number of exceptional people, specifically for IC work rather than leadership. We’re seeing those who have been CTOs or VPs choosing to work as an IC, because right now the most compelling work is building itself, not the scope of managing others.”
>
> – Franky Roberts, Head of Talent & Community, Evantic Capital

> “The best AI talent is more likely to want to work at an early-stage company, building the product from scratch – so you need to pay a premium to attract them away from that.”
>
> – Dennis Eriksson, Talent Director, Northzone

> “We're still seeing a lot of emphasis on the ‘super IC’ role. I'd bet that if you looked at the number of direct reports those M1s have, it's probably lower than it used to be. A lot of companies are hiring at M1 level but not giving them huge teams – that's where you get a lot of these founding engineer roles, founding go-to-market roles.”
>
> – Michelle Cheng, European Talent, Bessemer Venture Partners

> “We're seeing the AI premium being driven mainly by candidates, especially negotiating for large equity packages – including planned refreshers and liquidity events. There's a small amount of skilled talent available, and they know their worth.”
>
> – Ben Newsome, VP Talent & People, Cherry Ventures

> “As AI makes producing output faster and cheaper, human judgement becomes more valuable. The differentiator is no longer simply ‘can you produce something?’ but ‘can you tell whether it’s the right thing?’ That means building judgement, critical thinking, systems thinking and commercial understanding into the capabilities you hire and develop for.”
>
> – JooBee Yeow, Director of People & Organisation, Notion Capital

### Software Engineering salaries vs AI Engineering

AI Engineers now earn a premium over Software Engineers at every individual contributor (IC) level, of between 5% and 16%. The gap is widest at the most senior IC levels (P5-P6, +14-16%) and, interestingly, at entry level (P1, +16%).

In management, the premium all but disappears. AI Engineering pay sits within 1% of Software Engineering at M2-M4, and slightly below it at M5 (-4.8%).

That fits the "super IC" trend our experts describe: companies are paying more for exceptional individual builders, not for the people who manage them.

The one management level that still carries a premium is M1 (+6.8%). That’s likely the founding-engineer-style roles that lead small teams while still building themselves.

#### Software Engineering vs AI Engineering, by level

| Level | Software Engineering – All | AI Engineering | Difference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Senior Director (M5) | £161,000 | £153,200 | -4.8% |
| Director (M4) | £141,200 | £141,700 | +0.4% |
| Senior Manager (M3) | £126,900 | £126,000 | -0.7% |
| Manager (M2) | £108,000 | £107,900 | -0.1% |
| Supervisor (M1) | £77,600 | £82,900 | +6.8% |
| Expert (P6) | £145,900 | £169,500 | +16.2% |
| Specialist (P5) | £115,800 | £132,300 | +14.2% |
| Advanced (P4) | £93,100 | £102,400 | +10.0% |
| Established (P3) | £74,000 | £77,700 | +5.0% |
| Developing (P2) | £56,900 | £61,200 | +7.6% |
| Entry (P1) | £43,100 | £50,000 | +16.0% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

### Pay premiums at AI companies

Employees at companies where AI is core to the product earn 9.7% more overall than those at non-AI companies, for the same role, level, and country.

#### AI company pay premium

**Function**

It’s no surprise that AI companies pay a particular premium for Engineering talent (10.2% premium vs non-AI companies).

Interestingly Marketing sees the largest premium at 11%, and People roles are also in-demand at AI companies (10% premium).

| Function | Premium |
| --- | --- |
| Commercial | +8.7% |
| Engineering | +10.2% |
| Marketing | +11.0% |
| Operations | +5.9% |
| People | +10.0% |
| Product | +5.2% |

**Funding stage**

Late-stage AI companies pay the largest premium (17.4%), ahead of growth-stage (9.6%) – the AI premium gets bigger as companies mature and receive higher valuations.

| Funding stage | Premium |
| --- | --- |
| Late-stage (series C+, IPO) | +17.4% |
| Growth-stage (series A & B) | +9.6% |

**AI company pay premium, by career track**

Management sees the largest premium at AI companies of any career track (14.3%), followed by Professional (10.6%) and Support (9.3%).

| Career track | Premium |
| --- | --- |
| Management | +14.3% |
| Professional | +10.6% |
| Support | +9.3% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

> “AI companies are hiring later-stage calibre executives much earlier than we’ve traditionally seen. Even at Series B, the complexity of the business, pace of growth and value at stake can require leaders with experience operating at a much greater scale.”
>
> – Chloe Paramatti, Talent Partner, EQT Ventures

> “Pre-AI companies faced a decision: adapt their product to stay relevant in an AI-first world, or risk falling behind. Intercom's Fin is a good example of that shift. But making that pivot means competing for AI talent against the AI labs themselves, which is one of the reasons we're seeing late-stage companies pay a premium to attract that talent.”
>
> – Dennis Eriksson, Talent Director, Northzone

> “Once packages are all significant, scope of work becomes the real decision-making lever – not just the money. It’s who you’ll work with, what problems you get to solve, how much access you have to compute and data. Companies that win are selling much more than a compensation package.”
>
> – Franky Roberts, Head of Talent & Community, Evantic Capital

## Chapter 5: Retention trends

Overall, attrition is down and tenure is up this year – but early-stage companies have seen a drop in average tenure, now the shortest of any stage, when it used to be the longest. And when it comes to strategies for keeping people, companies are leaning on career development (54%), not pay (13%).

- **11.1%** attrition rate
- **54%** name career development their top retention lever
- **21%** of leavers were regretted

### Attrition rates

Attrition rates across European tech currently sit at 11.1%, down from 17.4% the year before and continuing a steady decline from 27.0% in 2023 – employees seem to be staying put this year, matching the slower hiring market seen in previous chapters.

#### Attrition rate, 2024-2026

**Attrition rate, European tech (all)**

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Attrition rate overall | 18.0% (-33.3%) | 17.4% (-3.3%) | 11.1% (-36.2%) |

**Attrition rate, by location**

Every tracked country has seen attrition drop this year, in-line with the overall trend. France (7.3% attrition rate), Sweden (8.6%), and Spain (10.7%) now have the lowest attrition across Europe.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 17.0% | 18.8% (+10.6%) | 12.1% (-35.6%) |
| Germany | 17.0% | 18.3% (+7.6%) | 15.3% (-16.4%) |
| Netherlands | 12.0% | 13.7% (+14.2%) | 11.7% (-14.6%) |
| France | 17.0% | 14.6% (-14.1%) | 7.3% (-50.0%) |
| Spain | 14.0% | 12.6% (-10.0%) | 10.7% (-15.1%) |
| Sweden | 10.0% | 12.8% (+28.0%) | 8.6% (-32.8%) |

**Attrition rate, by function**

Attrition fell across every tracked function this year, with Engineering (-38% to 7.5% attrition rate) and Marketing (-32% to 11.4% attrition rate) seeing the sharpest improvement. Engineering now has the lowest attrition of any function, in-line with the lowest hiring rate being seen there too – whilst it’s still more common to see movement amongst Sales roles.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales & Relationship Management | 19.0% | 18.4% (-3.2%) | 12.4% (-32.6%) |
| Engineering | 12.0% | 12.0% (0%) | 7.5% (-37.5%) |
| Marketing | 18.0% | 16.7% (-7.2%) | 11.4% (-31.7%) |
| People | 20.0% | 18.5% (-7.5%) | 11.3% (-38.9%) |
| Product | 16.0% | 14.0% (-12.5%) | 10.1% (-27.9%) |

**Attrition rate, by company stage**

Late-stage companies saw the biggest reduction in employee attrition this year, down to 10.5% attrition rate – a very similar rate to growth-stage companies. Early-stage companies see the most employee movement, at 12.1%, but still an improvement on last year in the midst of an overall quieter job market.

| Cut | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage (pre-seed, seed) | 21.0% | 18.0% (-14.3%) | 14.5% (-19.4%) | 12.1% (-16.6%) |
| Growth-stage (series A & B) | 25.0% | 15.0% (-40.0%) | 15.0% (0%) | 10.9% (-27.3%) |
| Late-stage (series C+, IPO) | 28.0% | 17.0% (-39.3%) | 17.6% (+3.5%) | 10.5% (-40.3%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

### Attrition drivers

Most attrition this year wasn’t the kind that companies want to avoid, with 54% of leavers unregretted resignations, and a further 24% left through company-wide layoffs.

For the 21% of leavers that were regretted, the reasons are overwhelmingly leaving for a better opportunity elsewhere, and base salary not being competitive enough (42%) – suggesting there’s an important role for reward in improving retention in future.

#### Primary driver of attrition in the last 12 months

| Answer | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Unregretted resignations | 54% |
| Company-wide layoffs | 24% |
| Regretted resignations (talent you wanted to keep) | 21% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Across the peer groups**

- **35%** of companies with 500-1,999 employees cite company-wide layoffs as a primary driver, against 11% under 100

#### What was responsible for regretted attrition?

| Driver | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Better opportunity elsewhere (role/scope/impact) | 73% |
| Base salary not competitive enough | 42% |
| Lack of career progression opportunities | 35% |
| Manager or team issues | 27% |
| Relocation | 19% |
| Poached by a competitor | 19% |
| Burnout or wellbeing concerns | 15% |
| Company instability or uncertainty (e.g. layoffs, funding concerns) | 12% |
| Flexibility or working model mismatch | 8% |
| Variable compensation not competitive enough | 4% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> "A lot of what looks like lack of career progression causing attrition is really a mismatch between communication and actual opportunity. I'd be curious how many people saying there's no opportunity have simply never had a productive conversation with their manager."
>
> – Leah Sutton, Chief Portfolio Talent Officer, Balderton Capital

### Average employee tenure

Average employee tenure across European tech currently sits at 794 days – or 2 years 2 months. That’s up slightly on last year (+2.8%), continuing a rise from 716 days in 2024, though growth has slowed sharply compared to the +7.8% jump the year before – aligning with hiring rates holding steady, so median tenure increases.

Employees who are still with their company have considerably longer tenure (857 days) than those who’ve left (442 days). This may indicate two distinct populations within the workforce rather than one even bell curve of tenure lengths – a cluster of shorter-tenure leavers alongside a cluster of long-tenure stayers.

#### Average employee tenure, 2024-2026

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Median tenure overall | 716 days | 772 days (+8%) | 794 days (+3%) |
| Median tenure still employed | 813 days | 863 days (+6%) | 857 days (-1%) |
| Median tenure at exit | 430 days | 444 days (+3%) | 442 days (0%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

> "442 days tenure at exit is incredibly low – if you take out ramping up and notice period, there's barely any time to make an impact, and the cost of hiring to replace leavers, with hiring and onboarding, is huge. I'd be trying to quantify that to make a business case to focus on doubling tenure."
>
> – Amanda Moore, Reward Consultant (expert clip: “The real cost of 442-day tenure”)

#### Average employee tenure, 2024-2026

**Average employee tenure, by location**

Sweden has both the longest tenure and the strongest growth this year (906 days, +10%), while France is the market with the shortest average tenure and the only market where tenure fell sharply in the last year (675 days, -10%).

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 694 days | 749 days (+8%) | 814 days (+9%) |
| Germany | 716 days | 791 days (+10%) | 780 days (-1%) |
| Netherlands | 758 days | 828 days (+9%) | 841 days (+2%) |
| France | 715 days | 750 days (+5%) | 675 days (-10%) |
| Spain | 631 days | 693 days (+10%) | 730 days (+5%) |
| Sweden | 777 days | 821 days (+6%) | 906 days (+10%) |

**Average employee tenure, by function**

Engineering employees have by far the longest tenure of any function (1,084 days), while Commercial has the shortest by a wide margin (640 days). Whilst typical tenure for most functions stayed largely stable, Operations saw sharp growth this year (+15%).

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Commercial | 654 days | 613 days (-6%) | 640 days (+4%) |
| Engineering | 897 days | 1,064 days (+19%) | 1,084 days (+2%) |
| Marketing | 820 days | 883 days (+8%) | 902 days (+2%) |
| People | 834 days | 869 days (+4%) | 857 days (-1%) |
| Product | 876 days | 982 days (+12%) | 961 days (-2%) |
| Operations | 630 days | 674 days (+7%) | 773 days (+15%) |

**Average employee tenure, by company stage**

Early-stage used to have the longest average tenure, but now has the lowest – and is the only funding stage where tenure fell this year (688 days, -9%). Growth-stage and late-stage companies both continued to see average tenure lengthen.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Early-stage (pre-seed, seed) | 727 days | 756 days (+4%) | 688 days (-9%) |
| Growth-stage (series A & B) | 652 days | 685 days (+5%) | 718 days (+5%) |
| Late-stage (series C+, IPO) | 677 days | 730 days (+8%) | 759 days (+4%) |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

> “There's much more movement happening at early startups right now, because there are so many exciting new AI products for people to jump to, so I’m not surprised tenure is lower."
>
> – Elena Pantazi, Head of Talent & Portfolio Development, Northzone

### Improving retention – what actions are planned for the next 12 months?

Career development is the biggest lever being pulled for retention (54%), well ahead of AI upskilling programmes in second place (31%).

Compensation levers trail some distance behind, suggesting companies are leaning on growth and development rather than cash to keep people. Over a quarter (26%) have no specific retention action planned at all.

> **Companies are betting on career growth to keep people, not bigger paychecks. 54% are leaning on career development for retention, versus 13% turning to pay.**

#### Actions planned to improve retention in the next 12 months

| Action | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Career development opportunities | 54% |
| AI upskilling programmes | 31% |
| No specific action planned | 26% |
| Improve employer brand | 25% |
| Internal mobility programme | 18% |
| Increase salaries | 13% |
| Improve benefits/flexibility | 13% |
| Other – please specify | 7% |
| One-time bonuses | 6% |
| Increase equity refresher grants | 5% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> "AI is resetting what 'doing the job well' means – there's a new bar for productivity, and a whole new skill and set of tools to learn. Pay doesn't help you feel like you're keeping up with that, which is probably why upskilling is beating comp as a retention lever this year: it addresses the more pressing anxiety of staying relevant in the workforce."
>
> – Elena Pantazi, Head of Talent & Portfolio Development, Northzone

> “AI L&D is definitely a focus for us. One thing we adjusted recently was to split our AI learning sessions by team, because when engineers and non-technical people are in the same room, the non-technical folks feel like they’re behind. Separating them means everyone’s comparing themselves to people solving similar problems, which lands a lot better.”
>
> – Paula Aragon, Senior Total Rewards Specialist, Storyblok

## Chapter 6: Pay equity trends

The unadjusted pay gap and the representation of women in tech haven’t moved this year – but the adjusted pay gap has dropped to 1%. EUPTD compliance is one of reward teams' biggest priorities this year and should start to shift that, but most are stuck waiting for local law to be finalised before they act.

- **20%** unadjusted gender pay gap
- **1%** adjusted gap
- **36%** of the tech workforce are women

### Gender pay gap progress

The unadjusted gender pay gap across European tech currently stands at 20%, holding flat on last year (20%) after a jump from 16% in 2024.

But the adjusted gap – comparing like-for-like pay across employees at the same level, company, and country – has reduced to 1%. With pay for the same role at the same level close to equal, the headline 20% figure is being driven by where women are represented within the workforce, not what they're paid once they're there.

> **The overall gender pay gap hasn’t moved in the last 12 months. It's sat at 20% since 2025 – but with EUPTD compliance now a top priority for reward teams, that should be set to change.**

#### Median gender pay gap, 2024-26

**Median gender pay gap, European tech (all)**

| Cut | Unadjusted | Adjusted (like-for-like) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2024 | 16% | 2% |
| 2025 | 20% | 2% |
| 2026 | 20% | 1% |

**Median gender pay gap, by location – Unadjusted**

Progress on the gender pay gap varies by market. Spain and Sweden are making improvements, with both the unadjusted and adjusted gaps narrowing year-on-year, whilst the opposite is true in Germany and the Netherlands. Interestingly, in the UK the unadjusted gap widened sharply (19% to 23%), the most of any market, but the adjusted gap actually closed to 0% – suggesting the widening is a representation shift rather than an equal value pay one.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 21% | 19% | 23% |
| Germany | 15% | 13% | 16% |
| Netherlands | 13% | 13% | 15% |
| France | 13% | 17% | 16% |
| Spain | 9% | 19% | 16% |
| Sweden | 16% | 17% | 13% |

**Median gender pay gap, by location – Adjusted (like-for-like)**

Progress on the gender pay gap varies by market. Spain and Sweden are making improvements, with both the unadjusted and adjusted gaps narrowing year-on-year, whilst the opposite is true in Germany and the Netherlands. Interestingly, in the UK the unadjusted gap widened sharply (19% to 23%), the most of any market, but the adjusted gap actually closed to 0% – suggesting the widening is a representation shift rather than an equal value pay one.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Germany | 0% | 1% | 2% |
| Netherlands | 3% | -1% | 4% |
| France | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| Spain | 1% | 2% | 0% |
| Sweden | 2% | 4% | 1% |

**Median gender pay gap, by function – Unadjusted**

People and Marketing, historically two of the most equal functions, both saw big increases in the gender pay gap this year. The unadjusted pay gap in the People function increased from -1% to 7% (though the adjusted gap is now -2%). In Marketing, the unadjusted gap widened to 12%, now the second-highest of any function, while its adjusted gap stayed flat at 3% – suggesting that more men are being promoted in Marketing than women, but those that are on the same job level are paid equitably.

Operations now has the lowest adjusted gap of any function, at 0%. Engineering and Product held broadly flat, but Engineering remains by far the worst offender on both measures, with the highest unadjusted (21%) and adjusted (5%) gap of any function.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales & Relationship Management | 12% | 6% | 7% |
| Engineering | 14% | 22% | 21% |
| Marketing | 6% | 7% | 12% |
| People | 2% | -1% | 7% |
| Product | 12% | 11% | 11% |
| Operations | 5% | 3% | 5% |

**Median gender pay gap, by function – Adjusted (like-for-like)**

People and Marketing, historically two of the most equal functions, both saw big increases in the gender pay gap this year. The unadjusted pay gap in the People function increased from -1% to 7% (though the adjusted gap is now -2%). In Marketing, the unadjusted gap widened to 12%, now the second-highest of any function, while its adjusted gap stayed flat at 3% – suggesting that more men are being promoted in Marketing than women, but those that are on the same job level are paid equitably.

Operations now has the lowest adjusted gap of any function, at 0%. Engineering and Product held broadly flat, but Engineering remains by far the worst offender on both measures, with the highest unadjusted (21%) and adjusted (5%) gap of any function.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales & Relationship Management | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Engineering | 4% | 4% | 5% |
| Marketing | 1% | 3% | 3% |
| People | -2% | 4% | -2% |
| Product | 3% | 3% | 2% |
| Operations | 1% | 1% | 0% |

**Median gender pay gap, by career track – Unadjusted**

The adjusted gap for Management roles narrowed this year (8% to 6%) but still sits well above the other two tracks. The gap in Support and Professional both also reduced slightly on both measures – with Support roles now having a 0% adjusted pay gap.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Support | 2% | 8% | 7% |
| Professional | 13% | 17% | 17% |
| Management | 10% | 16% | 16% |

**Median gender pay gap, by career track – Adjusted (like-for-like)**

The adjusted gap for Management roles narrowed this year (8% to 6%) but still sits well above the other two tracks. The gap in Support and Professional both also reduced slightly on both measures – with Support roles now having a 0% adjusted pay gap.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Support | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Professional | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| Management | 1% | 8% | 6% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026_

### Representation of women

Women make up 36% of the European tech workforce in 2026, down from 38% last year – a small decline, but within the expected level of year-to-year fluctuations rather than necessarily suggesting a downwards trend.

#### Representation of women European tech, 2024-2026

**% women in the tech workforce**

| Cut | Value |
| --- | --- |
| 2024 | 41% |
| 2025 | 38% |
| 2026 | 36% |

**Representation of women, by location**

Breaking it down by location, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden saw the sharpest year-on-year dips in representation, each down 4-6%, whereas the UK and France remained about the same.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 40% | 39% | 41% |
| Germany | 45% | 38% | 34% |
| Netherlands | 40% | 40% | 34% |
| France | 42% | 37% | 37% |
| Spain | 43% | 43% | 40% |
| Sweden | 41% | 41% | 35% |

**Representation of women, by function**

People (69%) and Marketing (55%) remain the functions with the highest representation of women, though both saw slight decreases in the past year. On the other end of the scale, Engineering remains the function with the lowest percentage of women, dropping to 19% this year, and Sales saw the sharpest drop this year, down from 42% to 33%.

| Cut | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales & Relationship Management | 42% | 42% | 33% |
| Engineering | 20% | 20% | 19% |
| Marketing | 63% | 59% | 55% |
| People | 69% | 73% | 69% |
| Product | 47% | 41% | 41% |
| Operations | 46% | 48% | 44% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2024-2026 | Share of women in the tech workforce_

> **The share of women in European tech isn’t improving. Female representation is at just 36% in 2026, a slight decline from 38% last year and 41% two years ago – remaining one of the biggest causes for unequal pay.**

> "Job postings are sometimes set towards a male profile without companies realising it. And as women, we're often more prone to waiting to be seen than to ask – which stops us from moving into senior roles, even when we're ready for them."
>
> – Andreea Lupu, Compensation & Benefits Architect, Meaningful (expert clip: “Why women wait to be seen”)

### Gender pay gap at executive level

Overall, 22% of executives are women, pointing to an issue with representation at the very top of organisations.

#### Proportion of women in the tech workforce, per career track

| Career track | % women |
| --- | --- |
| Professional (P1-5) | 40% |
| Management (M1-5) | 36% |
| Executive (E1-3) | 22% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

In terms of the pay gap, female executives earn 3-8% less on base, 21-28% less on bonus, and 18-27% less on annual equity value than male peers, with the gap widening at C-level across all three components.

#### Median executive compensation package, by gender

**Median executive compensation – Base salary**

| Level | Male | Female |
| --- | --- | --- |
| VP (E1) | £175,500 | £169,500 |
| C-level (E3) | £194,900 | £180,000 |

**Median executive compensation – Annual bonus**

| Level | Male | Female |
| --- | --- | --- |
| VP (E1) | £57,900 | £41,700 |
| C-level (E3) | £68,700 | £53,900 |

**Median executive compensation – Annual equity value**

| Level | Male | Female |
| --- | --- | --- |
| VP (E1) | £50,000 | £40,750 |
| C-level (E3) | £125,000 | £91,600 |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

### Pay transparency and EUPTD readiness

Most companies have made a start on [EU Pay Transparency Directive](https://ravio.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-eu-pay-transparency-directive) compliance – but given the Directive is now live, it's somewhat surprising that 19% have nothing in place yet, and 7% of those have no plans to.

#### EUPTD readiness: What’s already in place?

| Readiness item | % of companies |
| --- | --- |
| Salary bands/ranges documented for all roles | 63% |
| Removed pay history questions from recruitment | 54% |
| Established gender-neutral job evaluation framework | 46% |
| Pay ranges included in hiring process | 43% |
| Internal communications planned or in progress | 35% |
| Worker categories defined based on work of equal value | 34% |
| Established employee pay information request process | 33% |
| Gender pay gap calculated and documented by worker category | 30% |
| Remediation plan in place for identified pay gaps | 17% |
| Nothing in place yet, actively working on it | 12% |
| Nothing in place yet, not prioritising it | 7% |
| Not applicable | 15% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Across the peer groups**

- **100%** of e-commerce companies have salary bands documented for all roles, and 89% have removed pay history questions

> "We see a lot of companies still struggling with where they need to be transparent proactively, and where they just need to have an answer once an employee asks a question."
>
> – Alexandra Edl, HR Consultant, Edl Consulting AG (expert clip: “Proactive transparency vs. answering on request”)

> "Comms is always the last line on the reward project plan but with EUPTD that's a real risk. If your managers don't understand what to do once it hits operations, you can very easily become non-compliant without realising it."
>
> – Becky Hewson-Haworth, Pay Transparency & Reward Communications Consultant

### What are the biggest barriers for EUPTD readiness?

Over half of companies (52%) are waiting for their country's local law to be finalised before acting – more than any other barrier combined.

#### Biggest barrier to EUPTD readiness

| Barrier | % of companies |
| --- | --- |
| Waiting for local law to be finalised | 52% |
| No significant barrier – on track | 27% |
| Data/systems not set up to report on this | 8% |
| Concern about what the data will reveal | 6% |
| Lack of internal resource or budget | 4% |
| Lack of senior leadership prioritisation | 4% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

**Across the peer groups**

- **83%** of German companies are waiting on local law to be finalised, against 52% overall – there is no draft bill yet

> "For clients with employees in multiple countries, we're taking the transposition with the strictest requirements and applying that everywhere. It's easier to start strict than to have to change the whole approach later."
>
> – Andreea Lupu, Compensation & Benefits Architect, Meaningful (expert clip: “Why it’s easier to start strict”)

> "The most efficient path for global businesses is creating one company pay transparency communication standard. This should be a set of master communications documents that reflect your core reward approach and can be adjusted locally. It means one set of messaging and one overarching approach to educate people on, rather than adjusting country by country."
>
> – Becky Hewson-Haworth, Pay Transparency & Reward Communications Consultant

**Survey response quotes**

> We are working on pay transparency, but our main barrier is that leadership don’t see it as a priority. We only share information when asked at this point, with salary bands available ‘on demand’.
>
> – Survey respondent

> At the moment we share an employee’s distance from P50 and distance from P75, but we don’t share the exact band. The idea is to become more transparent with bandings as we close the gap to our ideal end point at P75.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Multi-country complexity is our biggest challenge. Our team is small yet distributed over 16 countries, each with different pay levels.
>
> – Survey respondent

> Our biggest struggle heading into 2027 is how to adhere to the EU Pay Transparency Directive as a small company just above the reporting threshold.
>
> – Survey respondent

> We’re well prepared and, at the end of this year, we'll be moving to full pay transparency for our employees. This will be more challenging for pay conversations for our people managers in 2027, but we anticipate it will be well received by employees.
>
> – Survey respondent

### High risk employee groups: EUPTD reporting

The EUPTD brings with it new reporting and compliance requirements. The level of risk a company should expect to carry depends on employee locations (due to differences in transposition per member state) and on the company’s own workforce and compensation approach.

Here we’ve included two analyses as a useful overall starting point: pay gap by job level – a proxy for the Directive's "equal value" categories that many companies are using as a starting point – and representation of women by pay quartile, which the Directive requires as part of reporting.

#### Gender pay gap by job level

Europe-wide we can see that the gender pay gap climbs through the individual contributor track, peaks sharply at M2 (15%), then narrows again at senior management and executive level (3%). The step into line management is where the widest pay disparity between men and women shows up, and so an area to pay particular attention to in analysis.

#### Gender pay gap, per job level

| Job level | Unadjusted GPG |
| --- | --- |
| P1 | 2% |
| P2 | 6% |
| P3 | 8% |
| P4 | 6% |
| P5 | 2% |
| P6 | 5% |
| M1 | 5% |
| M2 | 15% |
| M3 | 11% |
| M4 | 9% |
| M5 | 8% |
| E (all levels) | 3% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

#### Representation of women by pay quartile

Another lens the Directive requires is representation across pay quartiles: splitting the workforce into four equal-sized bands by pay to see where women typically sit.

Across Ravio’s dataset, we can see that women make up 48% of the lowest-paid quartile but just 25% of the highest-paid quartile – clearly showing that women tend to be concentrated in lower-paid roles in tech.

#### Representation of women by pay quartile, European tech

| Pay quartile | % women |
| --- | --- |
| Q1 (lowest paid) | 48% |
| Q2 | 40% |
| Q3 | 30% |
| Q4 (highest paid) | 25% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

When we split this per location, as companies will need to do depending on local laws, Sweden is the outlier.

Every other market shows the same pattern as overall, but Sweden is much more even throughout the quartiles – the lowest quartile is still almost half women, but the top quartile (28% women) is actually higher than its third (23%).

#### Representation of women by pay quartile, per location

| Location | Q1 (lowest) | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 (highest) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| UK | 51% | 43% | 31% | 26% |
| Germany | 45% | 40% | 32% | 22% |
| Netherlands | 50% | 36% | 29% | 25% |
| France | 49% | 41% | 32% | 26% |
| Spain | 51% | 46% | 34% | 28% |
| Sweden | 48% | 37% | 23% | 28% |

_Source: Ravio dataset, 2026_

**Begin your journey towards EUPTD compliance** With Ravio’s new EU pay transparency tool you can draft your equal value categories, calculate your gender pay gap exposure per grouping, and use regression analysis to understand what’s driving gaps.

[Book a demo](https://ravio.com/get-started)

### Actions taken to reduce gender pay gaps

Concerningly, almost half of companies (44%) took no specific action on their gender pay gap this year. Where action was taken, direct salary adjustments to close identified gaps (34%) were the most common lever.

That's a notable mismatch with what companies see as the root cause – most point to representation issues (36% underrepresentation in senior roles, 26% in higher-paying functions), yet the most common action treats the symptom rather than the structural cause.

#### What do you see as the biggest driver of your gender pay gap?

| Driver | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| Underrepresentation of women in senior/leadership roles | 36% |
| Unsure | 26% |
| Underrepresentation of women in higher-paying functions (e.g. Engineering) | 26% |
| Lack of evaluation on the business value of different roles | 5% |
| Manager bias and discretion during hiring | 4% |
| Manager bias and discretion during comp reviews | 3% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

#### Have you taken any specific actions to reduce your gender pay gap in the last 12 months?

| Action | % of respondents |
| --- | --- |
| No specific action taken | 44% |
| Yes, adjusted individual salaries to close identified gaps | 34% |
| Yes, introduced more compensation structure to reduce inconsistencies | 21% |
| Yes, introduced more structured hiring ranges to reduce negotiation bias | 15% |
| Yes, changed promotion/hiring practices to address representation | 8% |
| Other – please specify | 4% |

_Source: Ravio survey of People & Reward Leaders, September 2026_

> “Adding a bit more money to the salary increase budget is an easy box to tick, and it’s our role to make sure that extra budget actually helps close pay gaps for women. But budget alone doesn’t fix the underlying problem. Building real representation takes much more work – rethinking hiring strategies, writing more inclusive job descriptions, training recruiters and managers, and looking at where women are dropping out of the process.”
>
> – Liis Reitz, Compensation Specialist, SMG Swiss Marketplace Group AG

## Acknowledgements: The people behind the report

This report wouldn’t be possible without the people behind it – the Ravio team, survey respondents, and our wonderful expert contributors.

**Expert contributors**

- Alexandra Edl, HR Consultant, Edl Consulting AG
- Alexandra Stoica, Head of People
- Amanda Moore, Reward Consultant
- Andreea Lupu, Compensation & Benefits Architect, Meaningful
- Becky Hewson-Haworth, Pay Transparency & Reward Communications Consultant
- Ben Newsome, VP Talent & People, Cherry Ventures
- Carolin Schneider, HR Consultant, 4di2
- Chloe Paramatti, Talent Partner, EQT Ventures
- Daniel Illes, Portfolio Talent Director, Atomico
- Dennis Eriksson, Talent Director, Northzone
- Elena Pantazi, Head of Talent & Portfolio Development, Northzone
- Evert Kraav, Head of Compensation & Benefits, Bolt
- Franky Roberts, Head of Talent & Community, Evantic Capital
- JooBee Yeow, Director of People & Organisation, Notion Capital
- Leah Sutton, Chief Portfolio Talent Officer, Balderton Capital
- Liis Reitz, Compensation Specialist, Swiss Marketplace Group
- Marie Kanellopulos, CEO, DONE!Berlin
- Michelle Cheng, Senior Manager EMEA Talent, Bessemer Venture Partners
- Paula Aragon, Senior Total Rewards Specialist, Storyblok
- Petra Skoglund, Strategic HR Advisor

**Ravio team**

- Ilyas Sagar, Insights Lead at Ravio
- Tabitha Whiting, Content Lead at Ravio
- Maria Grach, Head of Design at Ravio
- Matt Reid, Brand Designer at Ravio
- Tom Hodgkins, Growth Engineer at Ravio

## Methodology and glossary

The data in this report draws from three sources:

1. [Ravio’s compensation dataset](https://ravio.com/compensation-benchmarking), made up of live data from the HR systems of 1,600 global tech companies and 618,000 individual employee datapoints, data pulled in Q3 2026.
2. Company and individual-level executive compensation data, gathered by Ravio and Erevena between Q4 2025 and Q1 2026.
3. A survey of 142 People and Reward Leaders across European tech, conducted in September 2026.

Data from Ravio’s dataset has been anonymised and standardised (i.e. made comparable) using the Ravio levelling framework and job taxonomy.

Ravio uses GBP as the standard currency so all salary data is shown in GBP, with other currencies converted to GBP using the exchange rate as of the end of Q3 2026. Salary trend analyses are performed on a constant-currency basis. Other currencies can be found in the Ravio platform.

This year, a few changes were made to the methodology for specific calculations compared to those used in previous editions of Compensation Trends by Ravio. Definitions and calculations can be found in the glossary below, including any changes made this year.

For the People & Reward Leader survey, respondents were most commonly based in the UK (23%), Germany (13%), Netherlands (12%), and the US (10%), with the remainder spread across a further 15+ countries. In terms of company size, respondents were fairly evenly spread from under 50 employees through to 2,000+, with slight skews towards larger companies: 500-999 employees (21%) and 2,000+ employees (21%).

By industry, the largest identifiable groups were fintech/financial services (14%), consumer tech/apps (10%), and healthtech/medtech/biotech (9%), with a broad longtail of other sectors.

For more information on the Ravio and Erevena executive compensation data, see the [European Executive Salary Survey 2026](https://ravio.com/reports/executive-salary-survey-2026).

### Glossary

- **Salary increase eligibility** refers to the percentage of employees who receive any form of salary increase (promotion or in-role). Increases are capped at 100% and each employee is counted once, based on their most recent pay rise in the period – both new parameters added for the first time this year.
- **Salary increase** refers to any in-role pay increase not associated with a promotion, defined as a pay increase of between 1-15%.
- **Promotion rate** refers to the percentage of employees who received a pay increase of >15% (the minimum raise typically associated with a promotion).
- **Promotion-based salary increase** refers to the salary increase received by employees who received a promotion.
- **Variable pay – % of base salary** Ravio’s variable benchmarks show the distribution of variable pay mix (as a percentage of base salary) for all relevant employees. This benchmark considers all forms of variable compensation (commission, bonus, etc). For each variable benchmark Ravio presents the effective cash amount, based on the 50th percentile of the equivalent base salary benchmark.
- **Hiring rate** refers to the percentage of new hires in the workforce, compared to the average headcount in a defined time period.
- **Attrition rate** refers to the percentage of the workforce that have left their employer in a defined time period.
- **Average employee tenure** calculates the median length of time an employee works for an employer, measured in days from an employee's recorded HRIS start date to the end of that year, or to their termination date if they left during the year. All ‘active employees’ are included, defined as those who started before 1 January of that year and either remain employed or were terminated on or before 31 December of the same year, or started during that year.
- **Unadjusted gender pay gap** calculates the raw difference in median earnings between men and women. Figures are calculated within each employer – a woman's pay is compared to men at her own company, not the market – and only companies with at least 5 men and 5 women are included, so each figure is based on a meaningful sample.
- **Adjusted gender pay gap** calculates the difference in median earnings between men and women once country, job family, seniority, and career track have been taken into account enabling a more like-for-like comparison of equal pay for equal work between genders. As with the unadjusted calculation, figures are calculated within each employer and only companies with at least 5 men and 5 women are included.
- **Representation of women** refers to the percentage of women in the workforce, compared to men. As with the gender pay gap, only companies with at least 5 men and 5 women are included for consistency.

## About Ravio

See how Ravio brings confidence to compensation

Stop guessing what to pay, and stop scrambling to defend it. Ravio enables you to ground every decision in live market data, so you choose confidence and stand behind it – whether to your stakeholders, employees, or regulators.

- [Get started with 3 free benchmarks](/get-3-benchmarks)
- [Book a demo to explore the full platform](/get-started)

- **Price roles with confidence** Benchmark against 1,600+ companies and 300+ roles using live market data, verified by our comp specialists – no more stitching together five sources and hoping.
- **Spot pay risk before it costs you** Map your workforce against market benchmarks and your own salary bands, so drift, outliers and inequity surface early, not after someone's already walked.
- **Stay ahead of pay transparency law** Identify and correct pay gaps with data you can defend, keeping you compliant with the EU Pay Transparency Directive and ready for scrutiny.

Compensation Trends 2027 · A report by Ravio