Salary Benchmarking: Market‑rate compensation
Audience: founders and early HR/ops leaders who need a practical, defensible way to set cash and equity pay. Goal: design a simple, auditable system you can maintain in hours per quarter—not weeks.
What “market rate” really means
“Market rate” isn’t a single number. It’s a policy choice: a percentile of a reference market (e.g., 50th or 75th) for a clearly defined job at a clearly defined level and location, plus your equity and benefits philosophy. Public datasets (BLS), private surveys (Radford/Aon), startup panels (Carta, Pave), and crowdsourced sources (Levels.fyi) each see a different slice of that market—and each has noise and lag. Use more than one lens. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Aon, Carta, pave.com)
What you’ll produce
- A one‑page Compensation Philosophy (how you pay, where you pay, your target percentiles, and equity stance).
- A lean job architecture (titles/levels) and pay bands (min–mid–max) per level.
- A location policy (location‑agnostic vs. location‑based factors).
- An equity rubric (new‑hire grants, refresh cadence, promotion top‑ups).
- A lightweight governance model (approval matrix + exception log).
- A review cadence (at least annually) tied to cash runway and market checks.
Step 1 — Write your compensation philosophy
Keep it short and explicit:
- Markets & percentiles: e.g., “We pay P50 cash / P75 total comp in our reference markets.”
- Cash vs equity: early stage = lower cash, higher equity; later stage = closer to cash market. YC’s rule of thumb: the first ten employees typically share ~10% of the company—useful as a sanity check, not a mandate. (Y Combinator)
- Geography: location‑agnostic (one band) or location‑based (factors by market). GitLab’s public handbook is a good model for transparent, market‑based location factors. (The GitLab Handbook)
- Transparency: commit to showing ranges internally; if you hire in states with pay‑range laws, you’ll be posting them anyway (see Compliance below). (Washington State Legislative Information, Findlaw)
Step 2 — Choose your data sources (triangulate)
Use at least one authoritative, one startup‑specific, and one crowdsourced/real‑time source:
- Authoritative (government): BLS OEWS for wages by occupation, state, and metro; great for anchors and audits. Example: Software Developer median = $133,080 (May 2024). (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
- Enterprise surveys: Radford (Aon) and similar subscription surveys offer deep, audited tech job coverage across 1,400+ roles; gold standard if you can afford it. (Aon)
- Startup ‑specific panels: Carta Total Compensation (large real‑time startup dataset integrated with cap tables) and Pave (includes the Option Impact/Advanced‑HR survey) are widely used for venture‑backed companies. (Carta, pave.com, Built In San Francisco)
- Crowdsourced/real‑time: Levels.fyi provides fresh compensation snapshots and role‑level comparables—most useful for tech roles and negotiations; treat as directional. (Levels.fyi)
- Open company policies: Buffer, PostHog, and (historically) GitLab publish compensation formulas and/or calculators—useful exemplars for location factors and transparency. (Buffer, PostHog, The GitLab Handbook)
Tip: build a simple “triangulation sheet”—one row per role/level, columns for each source, plus notes on sample size, geography, and refresh date.
Step 3 — Define roles and levels (job architecture)
- Keep levels coarse (e.g., IC1–IC6, M1–M3) with crisp scope/impact definitions.
- Map titles to survey job codes carefully; the biggest benchmarking error is title inflation (e.g., calling an IC3 a “Senior” when the market doesn’t).
- If you’re small, prioritize bands for your top 8–12 roles you’ll hire this year.
Step 4 — Pick percentiles and your cash/equity mix
- Choose one reference market per role (e.g., “SF Bay Area P50 base” or “US remote national P50”); for must‑win roles, consider P75.
- Convert that benchmark into your midpoint.
- Decide on equity philosophy by stage; for earlier hires, target ownership ranges instead of dollars (see Equity below).
Step 5 — Build ranges (bands) the simple way
- Set min–mid–max around the midpoint to allow growth without immediate promotion.
- A practical default width: ±15% around mid (range spread ~30%).
- Track compa‑ratio (employee pay ÷ midpoint) and range penetration to manage fairness over time.
Example: If P50 base for Senior SWE in your reference market is $180k, set the band at $153k–$180k–$207k. (Numbers shown are illustrative; use your triangulation sheet for the true midpoints.)
Step 6 — Decide your location policy
Common models:
- Location‑agnostic: one national band per level; simple and transparent; costs more if you hire outside top markets but avoids internal friction.
- Location‑based factors: define a market factor (e.g., SF = 1.00, Austin = 0.90, Warsaw = 0.75) applied to midpoints; base factors on labor markets, not cost of living. GitLab’s approach is a good reference. (The GitLab Handbook)
- Anchored multi ‑market: keep a “HQ anchor” (e.g., SF midpoints) and publish a short list of supported markets with fixed factors. Buffer’s historical formula (e.g., 85% and 75% of SF for certain locations) illustrates the idea. (Buffer)
Whichever you choose, publish it, apply it consistently, and set transfer rules for employees who move.
Step 7 — Benchmark equity as rigorously as cash
What to standardize:
- Grant sizes by level and stage: tie to ownership ranges (e.g., Staff Engineer 0.25–0.5% at pre‑Series A; adjust down as you scale). YC’s “~10% across first ten hires” helps calibrate your early bands. (Y Combinator)
- Cap table math: use fully diluted shares when translating percent to option count (outstanding + all convertibles + option pool). (Carta, Cooley GO)
- 409A valuation: sets the FMV for common stock and thus the option strike price; refresh at least annually or after material events. (Carta, JPMorgan Chase)
- Accounting: equity is expensed under ASC 718; finance will care about P&L impact of new grants and refreshes. (EY, Grant Thornton)
Quick formula Option count ≈ percent × fully‑diluted shares Always show candidates both ownership % and resulting options, plus the latest 409A and last preferred price for context. (Carta)