Compensation Plan Design · Glossary

ARR-Based Commission

ARR-based commission pays a rep on annual recurring revenue rather than bookings — in its strictest form on net new ARR: new business plus expansion, minus churn and contraction. It aligns the rep directly with net revenue retention, the metric the board watches. It also means a rep can close 97% of their quota in new and expansion ARR and finish at 67% attainment because a customer was acquired by a competitor. Whether that is fair is the question the plan must answer in advance.

What is ARR-based commission?

ARR-based commission pays a rep on annual recurring revenue rather than on bookings or contract value. In its strictest form, it pays on net new ARR — new business plus expansion, minus churn and contraction — which makes the rep's payout a direct function of the metric the board actually watches.

That is the appeal, and it is also where the trouble starts. Aligning a rep to net new ARR means aligning them to outcomes they only partly control.

What counts as ARR

MovementEffect on ARRTypically commissioned?
New logo+ new ARRYes — the full rate
Expansion / upsell+ expansion ARRYes — often at the new-logo rate
Renewal (flat)No change to ARRSometimes — at a lower rate
Contraction (downgrade)− ARRThe hard one — does it reduce the rep's number?
Churn− ARRThe hardest one

What this means?

The first three rows are uncontroversial. The last two are the entire design problem. A pure net-new-ARR plan reduces a rep's attainment when a customer they closed two years ago churns — for a reason they may have had no ability to influence, in a period during which they did nothing wrong.

That is either rigorous alignment or an arbitrary tax, and which one it is depends entirely on whether the rep could have prevented it.

Gross ARR vs net new ARR

Gross new ARRNet new ARR
Rep is paid onNew + expansionNew + expansion − churn − contraction
Rep controls it?Largely yesPartially — churn is often outside their control
Aligns withAcquisitionNet revenue retention — the board's metric
Failure modeReps close bad-fit customers who churnReps are punished for churn they did not cause
Best forLand-and-expand motions with a separate retention functionFull-ownership models where the rep keeps the account

The correct answer depends on one thing: does the rep own the account after close? If they do, a net ARR plan is fair and powerful. If a CSM takes over on day one, charging churn back to the AE is charging them for someone else's performance.

A worked ARR quarter

An AE on a net new ARR plan. Quota: $600,000 net new ARR. Rate: 10%.

MovementAccountsARR impactCommission at 10%
New logo3 new customers+$400,000+$40,000
Expansion2 upsells in the book+$180,000+$18,000
Contraction1 customer downgraded a tier−$60,000−$6,000
Churn1 customer left (acquired by a competitor)−$120,000−$12,000
Net new ARR+$400,000$40,000
Attainment67%

The rep closed $580,000 of new and expansion ARR — 97% of quota on the work they did — and finished at 67% attainment, because a customer was acquired by a competitor and shut the account down.

Whether that is fair is not a rhetorical question. It is the question the plan has to answer explicitly, in advance, in writing.

Making net ARR plans fair

Three mechanisms make the model defensible without abandoning the alignment:

A churn exclusion list. Churn from acquisition, bankruptcy, or a product sunset is excluded from the rep's number. Churn from a bad-fit customer the rep pushed through is not.

A time window. Churn within 12 months of close counts against the rep; churn after that does not. This is the same logic as a clawback window, and it is defensible for exactly the same reason: the rep influenced the first year and not the fifth.

A floor. Churn cannot reduce attainment below a stated level. It caps the downside of an event the rep did not cause.

Why ARR-based commission matters for finance teams

An ARR plan is the only structure that makes the sales team's incentive identical to the company's north-star metric — which is powerful and also means commission expense now moves with churn, a variable your comp model has probably never included.

It also complicates ASC 606: commission is capitalized against a contract, but a net ARR plan pays on a portfolio movement rather than on a contract. Mapping a portfolio-level payout back to individual contracts for amortization is genuinely difficult, and it is the thing most likely to be handled badly in a spreadsheet.

Common mistakes with ARR-based commission

1. Charging churn to a rep who does not own the account

If a CSM owns retention, churn is the CSM's number. Charging it to the AE is charging them for someone else's job.

2. No churn exclusions

A customer acquired by a competitor is not a sales failure. A plan that treats it as one will lose the rep, not fix the churn.

3. Not defining expansion

Does a seat expansion the customer self-served through the product count as the rep's expansion ARR? Most plans have never been asked and have no answer.

How Visdum handles ARR-based commission

Visdum computes net new ARR from the underlying CRM movements — new, expansion, contraction, and churn — as distinct, configurable components, so churn exclusions, time windows, and attainment floors are plan settings rather than manual adjustments someone makes at close. The rep's statement shows each movement as its own line, which means a rep at 67% attainment can see exactly which account cost them 30 points and why. And because each movement stays mapped to its underlying contract, ASC 606 amortization does not have to be reverse-engineered from a portfolio-level number.

Take a self-guided product tour →, or read SaaS sales compensation models.

Related terms

MRR Commission · Commissions on Renewals · B2B SaaS Sales Commission · Clawback · SaaS Sales Compensation Models

Calculate your OTE in 30 seconds

Enter your base, quota, and commission rate. Get your projected OTE plus earnings at common attainment scenarios.
Open the OTE calculator →

Frequently asked questions

What is ARR-based commission?

Commission paid on annual recurring revenue rather than on bookings or contract value. In its strictest form it pays on net new ARR — new business plus expansion, minus churn and contraction — which makes the rep's payout a direct function of net revenue retention, the metric SaaS boards watch most closely.

What is the difference between gross and net new ARR commission?

Gross new ARR pays on new business plus expansion only. Net new ARR subtracts churn and contraction. Gross aligns the rep with acquisition and risks rewarding bad-fit customers who churn. Net aligns them with retention and risks punishing them for churn they had no ability to prevent. The right choice depends on whether the rep owns the account after close.

Should churn count against a rep's commission?

Only if the rep owned the account and could have influenced the outcome. If a CSM takes over on day one, charging churn back to the AE is charging them for someone else's performance. Where churn does count, most defensible plans exclude churn from acquisition, bankruptcy, or product sunset — events that are not sales failures.

How do you make a net ARR plan fair?

Three mechanisms. A churn exclusion list, so acquisition and bankruptcy do not count against the rep. A time window, so churn within twelve months of close counts and churn after that does not — the same logic as a clawback window. And an attainment floor, capping how far churn can drag a rep's number down.

Does expansion count as ARR for commission?

Usually yes, and often at the full new-logo rate, because incremental ACV requires a real sales motion. The question most plans never answer is whether product-led expansion counts — if a customer self-serves additional seats without any rep involvement, is that the rep's expansion ARR? Decide before it happens.

How does ARR-based commission complicate ASC 606?

Commission is capitalized against a specific contract, but a net ARR plan pays on a portfolio movement rather than on any one contract. Mapping a portfolio-level payout back to individual contracts for amortization is genuinely difficult, and it is the part most likely to be handled badly when the calculation lives in a spreadsheet.