Commission Structures

The structure of a sales compensation plan

Every well-designed sales compensation plan answers three structural questions: how much guaranteed pay does a rep receive, how much variable pay can they earn, and what do they need to do to earn it? The terms in this cluster correspond to those three questions — and to the second-order rules that govern edge cases like ramp periods, plan changes, and over-attainment.

Guaranteed pay

The guaranteed component is base salary — the fixed annual amount paid regardless of performance. Base salary is the floor below which a rep's earnings cannot fall in a given pay period. In SaaS sales, base salaries typically range from $50,000 for SDRs to $120,000+ for enterprise AEs. Some plans include a sales draw — an advance against future commissions — which functions as a temporary income floor during ramp or slow periods.

Variable pay

The variable component is what reps earn from performance, captured by the term variable compensation. Variable pay can be structured as straight commission (a percentage of revenue), bonuses tied to specific milestones, or hybrid models. The relationship between base and variable is expressed as pay mix — the 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30 ratio that signals how aggressively a plan rewards performance vs. providing income stability.

The performance bar

The bar a rep must clear to earn full variable pay is the sales quota. Quotas are usually expressed as annual revenue targets but can also be activity-based (for SDRs), retention-based (for CSMs), or pipeline-based (for early-stage AEs). The percentage of quota a rep achieves is quota attainment, which directly determines variable payout.

KEY INSIGHT

The single number that anchors every comp plan is OTE — On-Target Earnings. OTE answers "what would this rep make at 100% quota," and every other plan parameter is calibrated around it: base, pay mix, quota, accelerator thresholds, and ramp guarantees. Get OTE right, and the rest of the plan is solvable. Get OTE wrong, and no amount of mechanic tuning will save the plan.

How plan design varies by role

The same comp plan structure applies across roles, but the parameters shift dramatically based on the rep's function:

• SDRs (Sales Development Reps): heavy base, low variable. Typical pay mix of 70/30 reflects that SDRs don't close deals directly — they're measured on meetings or qualified pipeline, which is more controllable.
• AEs (Account Executives): balanced 50/50 pay mix. The variable component is large enough to materially differentiate top performers from average, while base salary provides enough stability to weather slow months.
• Enterprise AEs: 50/50 or 60/40, but with much larger OTEs ($250K–$400K) and longer sales cycles. Enterprise plans often include multi-year deal bonuses and bigger accelerators.
• CSMs (Customer Success Managers): 80/20 or 70/30 — heavy base because CSM outcomes are slower-moving (net revenue retention, renewal rates) and individual deals have less variance.
• Sales Engineers: 75/25 typically, with variable pay tied to the AE's quota they support — a model called paired quota.

Why plan design matters beyond payroll

Compensation plan design isn't just a payroll exercise — it's the primary lever a company has to shape sales behavior. A plan that rewards new logos will produce reps who chase new logos at the expense of expansion. A plan that weights renewals will pull reps toward farming their existing books. A plan with caps will create end-of-period sandbagging. A plan without accelerators will lose top performers to competitors who reward over-achievement.

Plan design also determines cost-of-sales — the percentage of bookings that flow through to commission expense. Healthy SaaS plans target a commission rate of 8–12% of ACV, but unconstrained plans can drift to 15%+ with accelerators, SPIFFs, and over-attainment kickers. RevOps and Finance need shared fluency in these terms to identify when a plan proposal is structurally unsustainable.

Common plan design mistakes

Five mistakes recur across plan reviews:

• Inconsistent OTE definitions across teams — engineering offers $200K "OTE" including equity; sales offers $200K OTE meaning base + commission only. Reps interpret the difference as a pay cut.
• Quotas set without ramp — new hires get full-year quotas from day one, miss them, and either burn out or churn before their territory matures.
• Caps on commissions — capping out top performers is the fastest way to lose them. Modern plans are uncapped with declining accelerators instead.
• Pay mix that doesn't match the role — putting an SDR on a 50/50 plan (when their outputs are less controllable) creates anxiety and turnover. Putting an enterprise AE on a 70/30 plan (when their outcomes ARE controllable) under-motivates.
• Plan changes mid-year — adjusting quotas or pay mix mid-year breaks trust. Reps remember every retroactive change for years.