How much an executive is paid is only part of the compensation decision. The balance among salary, cash incentives, and equity also matters, particularly when a biotechnology company is preparing for its next stage of development.
GeneCoda® examined FY2025 CEO and CFO compensation across clinical-stage, late-stage/near-commercial, and commercial/transition public biotech companies. In this research cohort, equity represented a larger share of compensation at later stages, while salary represented a smaller share.
The distinction between the two roles was also revealing: CEO compensation was more equity-heavy at every stage, but the CFO compensation mix moved closer to it across the stage groups.
Equity accounts for more of the package at later stages
The analysis covered 220 executive compensation observations across 139 companies: 132 CEOs and 88 CFOs.
For CEOs, median equity share increased from 71.8% in the clinical-stage group to 80.5% in the commercial/transition group, a difference of 8.7 percentage points.
For CFOs, the difference was larger: median equity share increased from 54.8% to 70.8%, or approximately 16 percentage points.
Salary showed the reverse pattern. Its median share declined from 16.5% to 9.7% for CEOs and from 29.9% to 16.3% for CFOs.
The CEO/CFO gap narrows
The gap between CEO and CFO median equity shares was approximately 17 percentage points among clinical-stage companies, 12.3 points among late-stage companies, and 9.7 points among commercial/transition companies.
That is convergence in the structure of compensation, not evidence of equal compensation dollars. CEO median equity award values remained higher in every stage group.
A possible explanation is that boards place greater emphasis on long-term equity alignment for the executive with overall enterprise accountability. The CEO is responsible for the company’s direction and the leadership team’s collective execution.
As a company approaches commercialization, the CFO’s mandate may also expand across capital allocation, financial controls, commercial planning, and organizational complexity. A more equity-heavy package could reflect that broader responsibility and the importance of retaining the executive through execution.
Those are interpretations of the observed pattern. The analysis does not establish why individual boards chose their compensation mix or isolate stage from company scale and other differences.
A smaller cash percentage does not mean fewer cash dollars
Cash incentive share did not increase across the stage groups. Yet median cash incentive dollars were higher in the commercial/transition group than in the clinical-stage group for both roles.
For CEOs, median disclosed cash incentives increased from approximately $386,000 to $687,000. For CFOs, they increased from approximately $243,000 to $315,000.
The distinction matters when evaluating an offer or reviewing an incumbent’s compensation. A smaller percentage of a larger package can still represent a higher dollar amount. Neither the percentage nor the dollar value provides the full picture on its own.
What this means for boards and leadership teams
These findings provide context for compensation decisions, rather than a formula for setting them.
For a board considering a CEO or CFO package, three questions are useful:
- Does the peer group reflect the role and company context? A broad biotech comparison may obscure differences in stage, scale, operating complexity, and the executive’s mandate.
- Does the package support the work ahead? Hiring, annual review, and retention decisions can require different treatment of recurring compensation and one-time awards.
- What does the equity actually provide? Grant-date accounting value does not establish the executive’s current realizable value or the strength of future retention. Vesting, performance conditions, and option exercise prices require separate attention.
The practical takeaway is to evaluate both the level and composition of pay. In this cohort, later-stage companies showed a greater equity weighting for both roles, with the more pronounced difference appearing in CFO compensation.
Need a company-specific view?
GeneCoda® provides public biotech executive compensation advisory built around specific Board, Compensation Committee, and management decisions. Explore the Public Biotech Executive Compensation Advisory.
About the analysis
Source: GeneCoda® Public Biotech Executive Compensation Intelligence, research snapshot dated October 23, 2026. This analysis covers 220 CEO and CFO compensation observations across 139 companies drawn from GeneCoda’s index-led public biotech research. The research sample is defined specifically for this analysis and differs from the sample used in GeneCoda’s published compensation benchmark.
The analysis uses FY2025 filed Summary Compensation Table data and the latest stored controlled company-stage classifications available when the snapshot was prepared. It compares companies across stage groups; it does not track the same companies through development or reconstruct every company’s stage during FY2025. Subsequent stage changes are not automatically reflected.
Primary observations were classified Include, with complete components, positive total compensation, and component-to-total reconciliation within $1. Restricted, excluded, and historical-only observations were omitted, along with a separately identified sign-on-bonus case. Equity is stock plus option awards at grant-date accounting value; cash incentives are historical disclosed payouts, not target percentages. The findings are directional comparisons, not a formal compensation survey, recommended pay mix, or proof of a causal relationship between stage and compensation design.
