ServicesOur WorkInsightsFAQ
M Search · Compensation Intelligence Report

Office of the
CFO Tech Stack
GTM & Sales
Compensation
Benchmark

US Market · 2025–2026

Compensation ranges, quota attainment data, and candidate motivators across treasury, expense, AP/AR, and payments software — built from proprietary screen-level candidate conversations, not surveys.

Treasury / Cash Management·Expense & Corporate Cards·AP / AR Automation·Payments·GRC
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
About This Report

This benchmark was built from proprietary screen-level candidate data across five retained executive searches conducted by M Search for PE-backed and VC-backed OCFO software companies. The searches span three distinct OCFO subsectors: treasury and cash management, expense management, and accounts payable automation — representing a cross-section of the companies selling into the Office of the CFO in the United States.

Unlike survey-based compensation benchmarks, this data comes from actual recruitment conversations. Every number was stated by a live candidate during a screen — not self-reported on a form. The dataset covers IC through VP level, with geographic, subsector, attainment, and motivational slices not available from any public source. All candidates are anonymized.

Dataset
SearchRole LevelScreenedWith NotesNote Instances
Treasury Software — AEAccount Executive625213150
Treasury Software — VP Sales (Search 1)VP Sales Americas12912975
Treasury Software — VP Sales (Search 2)VP Sales Americas464525
Expense Management — VP SalesVP Sales Americas696830
AP/AR Automation — VP PartnershipsVP Partnerships1059443
Total974 screened549 with notes323 note instances

All companies are PE-backed or VC-backed OCFO software businesses with US expansion mandates · All candidates anonymized

Table of Contents
Executive SummaryKey Findings and Critical Data Points
Section IIC / Account Executive Compensation
Section IIDirector and VP Sales Compensation
Section IIIVP Partnerships and CRO Benchmarks
Section IVGeographic Premium Analysis
Section VSubsector Variation — Treasury vs. Cards vs. AP/AR
Section VIWhy Candidates Move — Ranked Motivators
Section VIIWhat Matters Most — Decision Criteria
Section VIIIQuota Attainment and the US Net New Problem
Section IXKey Insights for Client Conversations
msearchco.com2
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Executive Summary

Six Numbers That Define the Market

$400K+
Minimum OTE expectation for qualified VP Sales candidates in OCFO software — growth-stage mandates
M Search screen data · 200+ VP-level screens
46%
US net new quota attainment for a VP Sales Americas at a major European treasury software company — their best available candidate in the search
M Search proprietary screen note · treasury software search
156%
Same candidate's enterprise expansion attainment in the same period. The expansion vs. new logo gap is structural — not a performance problem.
M Search proprietary screen note · treasury software search
3–4 wks
Window to close a finalist VP candidate before a competing offer lands. Top candidates run 2–4 processes simultaneously.
M Search search data · 2024–2026
$118K
Co-investment equity component that closed a VP Sales placement against multiple competing offers — the structure that tipped the decision
M Search placement · expense management search
549
Screened candidates with rich compensation and career notes — across five searches, three OCFO subsectors, 2024–2026
M Search ATS · proprietary screen data
Three Structural Patterns
01
European OCFO companies face a structural comp disadvantage — and it's clearable
Candidates repeatedly cited risk around euro leadership and lack of US autonomy as the reason for passing. The companies in this dataset that successfully closed strong candidates did it by leading with US P&L ownership, co-invest equity, and a credible 3–5 year exit narrative. Companies that skip this framing lose candidates to this objection silently.
02
Equity matters more than base at VP level
Strong VP candidates aren't asking about base salary in the first conversation. They're asking about the fund, entry multiple, thesis, and timeline. The co-invest model is the most compelling structure for candidates who've seen it work — and in this dataset, the majority of top-tier candidates had.
03
US net new is structurally harder than expansion
The 46%/156% split documented in this dataset appears as a consistent pattern, not an outlier. European OCFO companies entering the US should model lower net new attainment in year 1–2 and build comp structures that keep top performers through the ramp period, not ones that penalize them for it.
msearchco.com3
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section I

IC / Account Executive Compensation

The AE dataset spans 625 screened candidates for a treasury software account executive search — selling 1–5 year SaaS contracts at $25K–$150K ACV into enterprise finance and treasury functions. Quota ranges ran from $500K to $3M+ ARR depending on segment and territory. The AE market in OCFO is bifurcated: mid-market and enterprise profiles have limited overlap in comp expectations and don’t compete for the same roles.

ProfileBase RangeOTE RangeSplitTypical Quota
SMB / Mid-Market AE$80K–$130K$180K–$250K50/50$500K–$900K ARR
Mid-Market / Enterprise AE$120K–$165K$240K–$350K50/50$900K–$1.5M ARR
Senior Enterprise AE$150K–$175K$300K–$400K50/50$1.5M–$3M+ ARR
OTE Range by Level — OCFO Software · US Market 2025–2026
Based on 549 screened candidates across five OCFO-focused executive searches
SMB / Mid-Market AE$180K–$250K
Enterprise AE ($1M+ quota)$240K–$350K
Sr Enterprise AE ($2–5M quota)$300K–$400K
Director / Sr Director of Sales$350K–$500K
VP Sales — Early Stage$350K–$450K
VP Sales — Growth Stage$400K–$500K
VP Sales — Established$450K–$600K
VP Partnerships$350K–$500K
CRO / GM North America$550K–$850K
$0$225K$450K$675K$900K
OTE = on-target earnings at 100% quota · M Search proprietary data, 2025–2026
Representative AE Profiles — Anonymized
Mid-Market AE, major ERP platform
Southwest US
Target $250–$350K OTE · Presidents Club · $500–$650K ARR quota
Mid-Market AE, email marketing platform
Northeast US
$120K base / $240K OTE · $1M quota · 110% attainment
Senior Enterprise AE, enterprise content platform
Southeast US
$160–$170K base (~$330K OTE) · $2.8M quota
Enterprise AE, in-memory database
Midwest US
$320K OTE · $1–$1.6M quota · Left after founder-CEO leadership change
Enterprise AE, work management platform
Midwest US
$175K base / $350K OTE · 12+ month enterprise cycles
Enterprise AE, subscription billing software
Southwest US
Target $300K OTE · $1–$1.2M quotas · 75% self-sourced pipeline
Enterprise AE, large technology company
Mid-Atlantic US
$400K OTE · Passed — didn't want payments-adjacent category
AE market bifurcation
Mid-market AEs ($500K–$1M quota) and enterprise AEs ($1.5M–$3M+ quota) are not the same talent pool. Comp expectations have limited overlap. OCFO companies with mid-market motions will lose enterprise-native AEs unless comp bands are repositioned — and enterprise-native AEs will underperform in mid-market motions if the company’s deal size doesn’t match their operating model.
msearchco.com4
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section II

Director and VP Sales Compensation

The VP Sales dataset spans three searches — two treasury software mandates and one expense management mandate — covering 244 total screened candidates. This is the most comp-dense level in the dataset, with the widest range between early-stage mandates and large-incumbent executives. The floor for a qualified VP candidate in OCFO software is $350K OTE. The realistic close range for a growth-stage company is $400–$500K OTE plus equity.

Director of Sales / Sales Manager
ProfileBaseOTESplit
Sales Manager / Regional Director$130K–$165K$250K–$350K50/50–60/40
Director of Sales$165K–$200K$350K–$450K50/50–60/40
Sr Director (second-line)$190K–$225K$380K–$500K60/40
Dir Mid-Market Sales, expense software → VP Sales placement
$200K base / $400K OTE + $118K co-invest equity · Was at $350K OTE, floor was $400K · 166% attainment
Client Sales Manager, corporate card company
Northeast US · $350K OTE current, floor $400K to move
Director of Sales, AP automation
South-Central US · Target $450K total · Had two offers in hand at time of screen
Dir of Sales NA, SMB accounting software
$1.1M quota · 117% (2023), 122% H1 · Target $450K OTE
VP Sales

Player-coach mandatory at sub-$30M US ARR stage. Must carry personal quota while building the team. Candidates who have only managed — never carried a bag — are a consistent source of VP misfires in this category.

StageBaseOTEEquity
Early US (sub-$15M ARR)$175K–$225K$350K–$450K0.25–0.75%
Growth stage ($15–$40M ARR)$200K–$250K$400K–$500K0.15–0.5% or co-invest
Established ($40M+ ARR)$225K–$265K$450K–$600KCo-invest / RSUs
Large incumbent outliers (banking infrastructure scale)$250K–$500K+$500K–$1M+Not the target pool
VP Sales NA, treasury automation software
Mid-South US
$250K+ base / ~$400K OTE · Motivated by missed equity at current company
VP Sales, major banking infrastructure company (20yr tenure)
Midwest US
$265K base / $575K OTE · $150K unvested RSUs · Wants equity at smaller firm
VP Sales Americas, major treasury software company
Southeast US
$250K+ base · Enterprise expansion 156% / US net new 46%
VP Enterprise West, treasury software (#1 team 2 consecutive yrs)
Northeast / Southeast
$5M team quota · Floor $250K base / $500K OTE · Prefers $550K+
Head of US Enterprise, accounting software
Northeast US
Grew US $7M→$25M ARR · Target ~$500K OTE + equity + ramp
VP Mid-Market, corporate card company
Midwest US
$160K base / $275K OTE · 166% attainment · Available due to NY/SF relocation requirement
VP Sales Americas, data management software
Southeast US
"At least in the fours." · $200K+ base preferred · $4M team quota
msearchco.com5
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section III

VP Partnerships and CRO Benchmarks

VP / Head of Partnerships

The partnerships search produced 94 screened candidates at VP and Head of Partnerships level. Partnerships roles in OCFO sit at the intersection of channel development, SI relationships, and tech ecosystem integration — with comp driven more by scope and stage than by direct sales quota.

ProfileBaseOTEEquity
First partnerships hire (early stage)$200K–$275K$350K–$400K0.25–0.5%
Head of Partnerships (scaled program)$225K–$275K$400K–$500K0.1–0.35% or co-invest
VP Partnerships — M Search placement
$275K base / $400K OTE + 0.5% equity · Prior role: built partner program to 80% influenced revenue by Series D
VP Channel Sales, treasury software
Midwest US · $350K OTE · 60/40 or 70/30 split preferred
Head of Partnerships, AI operations (prev. hyperscaler)
$260K base · Wants transparent, trackable comp structure
CRO / GM North America

CRO benchmarks are context-dependent on ARR stage and whether the role is first CRO or successor. The ranges below reflect observed expectations from CRO-track VP candidates in this dataset.

StageBaseOTEEquity
CRO / GM, growth PE-backed ($20–$60M ARR)$275K–$325K$550K–$700K0.5–1.5%
CRO / GM, established ($60M+ ARR)$300K–$400K$650K–$850KCo-invest + RSUs
In this dataset, 58% of VP Sales candidates explicitly evaluated whether the VP role could become a CRO mandate within 2–3 years. Leaving this implicit is a structural close rate problem. Companies that frame the VP role as the future CRO — and mean it — close stronger candidates faster.
The large-incumbent ceiling problem
The top end of large incumbent treasury and banking infrastructure companies pays $250K–$500K+ base with OTE reaching seven figures. These candidates exist in the market and are visible, but they are effectively unplaceable for growth-stage companies — the comp gap is unbridgeable and they are often right to stay. The strategic question is identifying the candidates one level below: treasury-adjacent backgrounds, ready to step up, and genuinely motivated by equity upside rather than base salary protection.
msearchco.com6
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section IV

Geographic Premium Analysis

Geography carries meaningful comp variance at the AE level and compresses at VP level — where equity, autonomy, and stage matter more than zip code. The dataset spans New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Texas, Southeast, and Midwest, with the largest single cohort in the NYC metro.

MarketPremium vs. NationalCharacter
NYC Metro (NY/NJ/CT)+15–20% baseStrongest fintech density · Premium sharpest at AE level · Major treasury and banking infrastructure companies anchored here
SF / Bay Area+15–20% baseFewer OCFO candidates · More startup-centric · Higher card/fintech concentration
Chicago / MidwestAt marketMultiple strong treasury candidates · Very remote-friendly · Major banking infrastructure presence
Texas (Austin / Dallas / Houston)At market or −5%Growing hub · High quality candidates · More flexible on structure
Southeast (Atlanta, FL, Carolinas)−5 to −10%Raleigh-Durham strong at VP level · Florida growing · Strong fintech crossover
Ohio / Midwest flyover−5 to −10%Willing to travel extensively · VP-level candidates available well below national base averages
The NYC coastal premium is most pronounced at the AE level. At VP level it compresses significantly — candidates outside major metros routinely accepted at-market or slightly below in exchange for equity, autonomy, and the ability to build something. The strongest VP candidates in this dataset were not in San Francisco.
Remote is table stakes
Remote and flexible work was cited unprompted by 65% of AE-level candidates in this dataset. It is not a differentiator — it is a baseline expectation. Companies requiring in-market presence are not failing to compete; they are not getting into the conversation at all. At VP level, candidates accept travel but not relocation. One candidate with back-to-back 166%+ attainment years was available for exactly one reason: their employer required relocation to New York or San Francisco ahead of an expected IPO.
Geography by Subsector
SubsectorTalent Density
Treasury / Cash ManagementNYC (major incumbents HQ) · Chicago (several treasury platforms) · Remote Midwest
Expense / Corporate CardsSF (VC-backed card companies) · NYC (AmEx, major card networks) · Chicago (expense platforms)
AP / AR AutomationDistributed · Strong Austin · NYC · Chicago
Payments InfrastructureNYC · San Francisco · Chicago
GRC-AdjacentChicago · Lexington KY · Distributed
msearchco.com7
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section V

Subsector Variation

OCFO is not a monolithic category. Comp, candidate supply, and motivational profile vary meaningfully by subsector. The five subsectors represented in this dataset show distinct patterns worth understanding before a search begins.

Treasury / Cash Management
Treasury automation, cash visibility, bank connectivity, payment operations
$200–$265K base · $400–$575K OTE (growth-stage)
Large incumbents: $250K–$500K+ base · 7-figure OTE · NOT target pool for sub-$30M ARR
Highest-expertise, highest-comp category in OCFO. Treasury-native VPs command a 15–20% premium at every level. Supply at the top is genuinely thin — the top performers are known by everyone in the category and priced accordingly. The most effective hire is typically one level below the top of market: treasury-adjacent background, ready to move up.
Expense Management / Corporate Cards
T&E, corporate cards, spend management, reimbursements
$160–$200K base · $275–$450K OTE
Wide range due to VC-backed comp variation · Card roles trend lower (volume-based)
Multiple screened candidates explicitly wanted to move away from card and commodity products toward OCFO software with better margins and stickier economics. Director-level supply is strong at $350–$450K OTE. Major card-centric companies are actively losing people to office return and relocation policies — a real pipeline source for growth-stage mandates.
AP / AR Automation
Accounts payable, accounts receivable, invoice processing, procurement
$200–$225K base · $400–$450K OTE
Mid-range · Category mature · Post-acquisition environments at major players are active talent pools
Post-PE-acquisition environments have created strong VP-level movement in this category. High exec attrition at some of the major players — 15-month average tenure at VP level — is a consistent pipeline source. AP/AR backgrounds translate well to broader OCFO mandates but candidates sometimes arrive with a feature-selling mentality that needs retooling for competitive OCFO sales.
Payments Infrastructure
B2B payments, payment rails, treasury payments, cross-border
$175–$225K base · $350–$450K OTE
Slightly lower than treasury · Pure payments backgrounds often screened out — enterprise software fluency preferred
Pure payments backgrounds were a consistent recruiter pass in this dataset. Selling to banks versus selling to CFOs is a fundamentally different motion. Candidates with payments plus OCFO software crossover backgrounds are the right profile — the payments context is additive, not substitutable.
GRC-Adjacent / Broader OCFO Platform
Risk, compliance, audit, financial controls, FP&A platforms
$200–$225K base · $400–$500K OTE
Higher OTE expectations but less direct OCFO experience · Cross-border fluency rare
GRC-adjacent backgrounds sell into CFO organizations through a compliance lens, not a treasury or AP lens. This category tends to produce candidates with strong enterprise sales discipline but limited OCFO product domain context. Floor expectations run higher than the actual market for early-stage OCFO mandates.
msearchco.com8
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section VI

Why Candidates Move — Ranked Motivators

Ranked by frequency across 323 rich screen notes. These are the actual stated or observed reasons candidates were open to a conversation — not hypothetical motivators.

1.

PE-owned / EBITDA optimization mode

Company acquired or shifted post-acquisition. Equity stripped. Growth replaced by cost-cutting. This is the single most common driver of VP-level availability in the market right now — and it’s directly tied to the PE hold period extension phenomenon.

“Company is in lockdown mode ahead of PE exit. Lost equity participation after acquisition.” — VP Sales, major treasury software company

2.

Geographic restriction / relocation pressure

Fintech and card companies forcing return-to-office in NY or SF as they approach IPO. One VP with back-to-back 166%+ attainment years was available for exactly this reason — their company required relocation ahead of an expected public offering.

“Company wants everyone in NY or SF ahead of expected IPO. Feels handcuffed on hiring.” — VP Mid-Market, corporate card company

3.

Layoffs / restructuring — post-acquisition or post-growth

Major enterprise content, database, work management, and banking infrastructure companies all contributed candidates following reductions in force. These are often strong performers who survived multiple rounds — not underperformers.

4.

Culture / leadership decline

Leadership turnover, morale decay, founder-CEO friction, or a new private equity sponsor changing the operating environment. The signal is often a top performer leaving without an announced next role.

“Top rep of the year left 6 months after being recognized on stage.” — Enterprise AE, database software

5.

Territory or quota resets — capped upside

Teams and territories constantly reshuffled. Quota resets above 100% attainment. Earning potential capped by design rather than performance. Common at large banking infrastructure companies and post-PE-acquisition businesses.

“They keep reshuffling team and territory and targets. Hard to get above 120%.” — VP Sales, banking infrastructure company

6.

Company stage misfit — large-co candidates seeking builder work

Candidates with 10–20 years at enterprise incumbents actively seeking a smaller environment where they can own strategy and build something. Usually triggered by a specific inflection point — promotion blocked, new boss, or watching a peer take an equity-upside role.

“Sick of working for bigger companies. Treated as just a number.” — Enterprise AE, large technology company

7.

Contract or job insecurity — post-acquisition uncertainty

6-month contracts common at mid-market companies post-acquisition. Candidates on fixed terms are often in the market quietly. Not always the strongest profiles — but worth screening.

msearchco.com9
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section VII

What Matters Most — Decision Criteria

VP-Level: What Mattered Most
By frequency across 200+ VP-level screen notes
Equity / co-investment structure91%
Product conviction (must believe first)78%
Hiring authority / autonomy71%
Manager / CEO relationship quality65%
CRO path within 2–3 years58%
Exit narrative / hold timeline clarity52%
Market size / category trajectory44%
Frequency reflects candidates who mentioned this factor unprompted · M Search screen notes 2024–2026
AE-Level: What Mattered Most
By frequency across 150+ AE-level screen notes
Manager / culture quality88%
Company growth trajectory82%
Product-market fit conviction74%
Base salary stability68%
Remote / flexible work arrangement65%
Monthly commission cadence54%
Territory / quota design48%
Frequency reflects candidates who mentioned this factor unprompted · M Search screen notes 2024–2026
Comp Structure Preferences
Equity / Co-Investment
VP-level expectation is 0.15–0.75% equity or $75–$150K co-invest, depending on stage. Multiple candidates in this dataset cited a past PE exit that changed their financial trajectory. The co-invest model resonates most powerfully with candidates who have already been through one — they understand the math intuitively.
"Bought a house on the Gulf with equity proceeds." — VP Sales, PE-backed software · "Been through Thoma Bravo twice. Treats jobs as 4-year commitments." — VP Sales, PE-backed software
Base vs. Variable Split
AE level strongly prefers 50/50 or base-heavy for remote stability. VP level from large incumbents accepts 50/50. Scale-up backgrounds tolerate 40/60 base-heavy for equity. Strong theme across the dataset: preference for monthly commissions over quarterly/annual.
"Predictable income for fixed costs." — Multiple AE-level candidates
Ramp / Guarantee
3–6 month ramp guarantee is near-universal expectation at VP level. Signing bonuses to cover unvested equity are becoming standard — and are often the deciding factor when a finalist has unvested stock at their current company. The VP placement in the expense management search received 6-month ramp coverage equal to full variable comp target.
Hiring Authority
At VP level, control over hiring decisions — not just input — is a gating criterion for the strongest candidates. Multiple candidates explicitly asked whether they could reject candidates the board or CEO wanted to hire.
"If you're going to let me cook, you've got to let me buy the groceries." — VP Mid-Market, corporate card company
msearchco.com10
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section VIII

Quota Attainment and the US Net New Problem

Quota Attainment — Selected Screened Candidates (Anonymized)
Strong performers at 100–170%+ · bottom two rows show the same candidate, same period — illustrating the US new logo gap
VP Sales, expense software (2× consecutive)180%+
US Head of Enterprise, accounting software (final yr)200%
Dir Mid-Market, expense software → VP placement166%
VP Mid-Market, corporate card software166%
Dir of Sales NA, SMB accounting software117–122%
VP Sales, banking infrastructure (5yr range)101–136%
VP Sales, banking infrastructure114%
VP Enterprise West, treasury software (yr1)110%
Enterprise AE, subscription billing softwareConsistently exceeded
Mid-Market AE, ERP platformPresidents Club
VP Sales Americas, data management (company best)87%
VP Sales Americas, treasury software — expansion156%
VP Sales Americas, treasury software — US net new46%
M Search proprietary screen data · five OCFO executive searches · 2024–2026 · all candidates anonymized
The US net new split — the most important pattern in this report
One candidate screened for a treasury software VP Search ran their team at 156% to goal on enterprise expansion and 46% on US net new business — simultaneously. Same person, same period, same company. This split is not an outlier. It is a structural phenomenon that appears throughout this dataset: European OCFO companies entering the US consistently over-perform on expansion from existing relationships and under-perform on net new US logo acquisition. The implication for hiring is direct — build comp plans that keep top performers through a 12–18 month net new ramp, not ones that make them feel like failures in their first year.
Pass Analysis
Candidate Passes — Most Common Triggers
·Happy / not actively looking
·Recently promoted or just took new role
·European company concern — autonomy risk
·Comp too low — gap unbridgeable
·Competitor equity conflict (existing stock, portco overlap)
Recruiter Passes — Most Common Triggers
·Stronger candidates in play
·Short tenures / job-hopper pattern
·Not senior enough for stage
·Wrong background: banks not corporates, IC only, compliance-only
·Comp floor above search band
The competing offer problem
Multiple finalists across these searches had offers in hand at the time of screening. One Director-level candidate had two competing offers arriving within two weeks. One VP finalist pulled out because they held significant stock in a competing OCFO company from a prior tenure. Strong candidates run 2–4 processes simultaneously. Three weeks from finalist identification to signed offer is the close window benchmark. Beyond that, the probability of offer acceptance drops sharply.
msearchco.com11
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section IX

Key Insights for Client Conversations

01 — The European OCFO discount is real — and clearable
Candidates repeatedly cited risk around euro leadership and lack of US autonomy as the reason for passing. The companies in this dataset that successfully closed strong candidates did it by leading with US P&L ownership, co-invest equity, and a credible 3–5 year exit narrative. Companies that skip this framing and lead with the product story lose candidates to this objection silently — without ever knowing it was the reason.
02 — Equity is more important than base — at VP level
Strong VP candidates aren't asking about base salary in the first conversation. They're asking about the fund, entry multiple, hold thesis, and timeline. The co-invest model ($75–$150K invested = meaningful upside at 3–5x exit) is the most compelling structure for candidates who've seen it work — and in this dataset, the majority of top-tier candidates had.
03 — Product conviction is a gating factor — not just a checkbox
Technically qualified candidates passed because they weren't convinced on product or market. Building materials that answer these questions before they're asked — win rates, competitive positioning, logo quality, market size narrative — directly improves finalist close rates. The candidates who passed on product concerns were not wrong to do so.
04 — The AE market is bifurcated — mid-market and enterprise don't compete
Mid-market AE ($500K–$1M quota) and enterprise AE ($1.5M–$3M+ quota) are structurally different profiles with minimal comp overlap. Designing a search that attracts both or trying to split the difference almost always produces a candidate who's wrong for the motion.
05 — Build comp plans for the US new logo ramp reality
US net new development for European OCFO companies is structurally harder than expansion. The 46%/156% split documented in this dataset is consistent, not exceptional. Comp plans that feel punishing in year 1 — when a strong hire is building pipeline, not closing it — accelerate attrition exactly when you can least afford it.
06 — Speed is a competitive advantage in close
Top candidates run 2–4 processes simultaneously. The window from finalist identification to signed offer is 3 weeks in a competitive process. Every week of internal delay after a finalist decision is a measurable probability decrease on a successful close. The companies that move faster than their comp bands close candidates that better-capitalized competitors lose.
About M Search

M Search is a boutique executive search firm specializing in GTM and sales leadership mandates for PE-backed B2B software companies.

We run VP Sales, CRO, VP Marketing, VP CS, and VP Partnerships searches for PE-backed and VC-backed OCFO software companies expanding in the United States. The data in this report was generated from live searches across treasury, expense management, and AP/AR automation — not surveys. Our work spans placements at PE-backed treasury software, expense management, and AP/AR automation companies across Marlin Equity, Aquiline, and Eurazeo-backed portfolios.

Talk to M Search →Read the US GTM Hiring Playbook →

Graham Locklear · M Search · graham@msearchco.com · linkedin.com/in/graham-locklear/

msearchco.com12