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 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 treasury and cash management, expense management, and accounts payable automation — a cross-section of the companies selling into the Office of the CFO in the United States.

Every data point in this report comes from an actual recruitment conversation — not a survey or self-reported form. The dataset covers IC through VP level, with geographic, subsector, attainment, and motivational cuts not available from any public source. All candidates and client data are anonymized.

Dataset
SearchRole LevelApproximate Pool Size
Treasury Software — AEAccount Executive600+
Treasury Software — VP Sales (Search 1)VP Sales Americas100+
Treasury Software — VP Sales (Search 2)VP Sales Americas40+
Expense Management — VP SalesVP Sales Americas60+
AP/AR Automation — VP PartnershipsVP Partnerships100+

All companies are PE-backed or VC-backed OCFO software businesses with US expansion or US growth mandates

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

Five Numbers That Define the Market

$400K+
Minimum realistic OTE for a qualified VP Sales candidate in OCFO software at a growth-stage company
M Search screen data · 200+ VP-level screens
3 weeks
From first interview to signed offer — the close window for strong VP candidates before a competing offer lands
M Search search data · 2024–2026
91%
Of VP-level candidates raised equity or ownership stake as a primary decision factor — unprompted
M Search screen data · VP Sales and VP Partnerships screens
65%
Of AE-level candidates raised remote or flexible work as a baseline expectation — not a differentiator
M Search screen data · 600+ AE-level screens
15–20%
Base salary premium for equivalent roles in the NYC metro vs. national market — most pronounced at the AE level
M Search proprietary screen data · geographic comparison
2–4
Active processes the average strong VP candidate is running simultaneously when you speak to them
M Search search data · VP Sales and Partnerships screens
Three Structural Patterns
01
The Island Problem
Any company headquartered outside the US faces a version of this when hiring a US revenue leader. The candidate's concern is not about product or comp — it's about whether they will have the authority, the air cover, and the P&L visibility to actually win. Companies that address this directly and credibly close stronger candidates. Those that don't lose them without knowing why.
02
Path to broader responsibility is the primary retention lever
Strong VP candidates evaluate a role not just on what it is today but on what it becomes. A clear path to expanded scope, greater organizational influence, and a credible exit narrative — whether that's an IPO, a strategic sale, or a PE exit — is what separates roles that attract top talent from roles that attract available talent.
03
US net new is structurally harder than expansion
Companies that have a meaningful installed base outside the US consistently see a gap between expansion performance and US net new logo performance. This is not a hiring failure — it is a market reality. Build comp structures and timelines that account for a longer US new logo ramp rather than ones that penalize strong leaders 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 600+ screened candidates across mid-market and enterprise profiles — selling SaaS contracts at $25K–$150K ACV into finance, treasury, and operations functions. Quota ranges ran from $500K to $3M+ ARR depending on segment, territory, and deal size. The AE market in OCFO spans a wide range: a $500K ARR quota is a mid-market motion; a $2–3M ARR quota is a true enterprise motion. The hiring profile and comp expectations for each are distinct and do not compete for the same candidates.

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–$200K$300K–$420K50/50$1.5M–$3M+ ARR
OTE Range by Level — OCFO Software · US Market 2025–2026
Ranges reflect realistic close bands from live candidate conversations — not posted ranges
SMB / Mid-Market AE$180K–$250K
Enterprise AE ($1M+ quota)$240K–$350K
Sr Enterprise AE ($2–5M quota)$300K–$420K
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$450K–$750K
$0$200K$400K$600K$800K
OTE = on-target earnings at 100% quota · M Search proprietary data, 2025–2026
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 building a mid-market motion will struggle to close enterprise-native AEs unless comp bands are repositioned — and enterprise-native AEs will underperform in mid-market motions if the average deal size doesn’t match their operating model. Define the motion before you define the profile.
AE background patterns in OCFO
The strongest AE performers in this dataset came from adjacent SaaS categories — ERP, subscription billing, spend management, enterprise content, and financial data platforms — rather than from legacy OCFO vendors. OCFO product knowledge can be learned; enterprise sales motion and quota attainment track record cannot.
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 covering treasury and expense management mandates — approximately 250 screened candidates in total. 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 meaningful 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

Director-level candidates in this dataset came primarily from expense management, corporate card, and AP automation backgrounds. Observed equity expectations at Director level ranged from 0.1–0.3%, with candidates from VC-backed environments more likely to raise equity as a priority than those from PE-backed or public company backgrounds.

VP Sales

At earlier stages, VP Sales candidates are expected to carry a personal quota alongside building the team. Candidates with purely managerial backgrounds — no individual quota history — are a consistent source of early VP misfires in this category. The best candidates in this dataset had both.

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%
Established ($40M+ ARR)$225K–$265K$450K–$600KRSUs or structured equity
Large incumbent outliers$250K–$500K+$500K–$1M+Not the target pool

Across screened VP candidates, equity expectations ranged from 0.15–0.75% depending on stage and background. Signing bonuses to offset unvested stock at a prior employer were a recurring close-stage consideration — particularly for candidates coming from well-capitalized public or late-stage companies. Ramp guarantees of 3–6 months were a near-universal expectation at VP level.

The large-incumbent ceiling is real. Candidates from the top tier of major banking infrastructure and treasury software companies carry comp structures that growth-stage companies cannot match. The strategic question is not how to compete with those packages — it’s how to identify the candidates one level below who are ready to step up and motivated by what equity upside can actually produce.
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 90+ 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. Equity expectations were higher relative to base for partnerships roles than for direct sales roles at comparable levels.

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%

Observed VP Partnerships profiles ranged from channel-native backgrounds (GSI, VAR, tech alliances) to hybrid BD/sales operators who had built partner programs from zero. The strongest candidates in this search had both a clear framework for partner attribution and a track record of influenced revenue they could articulate quantitatively.

CRO / GM North America

CRO benchmarks are context-dependent on ARR stage and whether the role is a first CRO appointment or a successor hire. 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$450K–$600K0.5–1.5%
CRO / GM, established ($60M+ ARR)$300K–$400K$600K–$750KStructured equity
In this dataset, more than half of VP Sales candidates explicitly evaluated whether the VP role could evolve into a CRO mandate within 2–3 years. Leaving this implicit is a structural close rate problem. Companies that frame the trajectory openly — and mean it — close stronger candidates faster.
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 · 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%Strong VP-level candidates · Florida growing · Significant fintech crossover
Ohio / Midwest flyover−5 to −10%Willing to travel extensively · VP-level candidates available below national base averages
The NYC coastal premium compresses significantly at VP level. Candidates outside major metros routinely accepted at-market or slightly below in exchange for equity, autonomy, and the ability to build something. Some of the strongest VP candidates in this dataset were not in coastal markets.
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 on this dimension; they are often not getting into the conversation at all. At VP level, candidates accept meaningful travel requirements but not relocation.
Geography by Subsector
SubsectorTalent Density
Treasury / Cash ManagementNYC (major incumbents) · Chicago (treasury platforms) · Remote Midwest
Expense / Corporate CardsSF (VC-backed card companies) · NYC (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 · well above growth-stage bands · not the target pool
Highest-expertise, highest-comp category in OCFO. Treasury-native VPs command a meaningful premium at every level. Supply of true specialists is thin — the top performers are known across the category and priced accordingly. The most effective hire is typically a treasury-adjacent operator who is ready to move up and genuinely motivated by what ownership can produce.
Expense Management / Corporate Cards
T&E, corporate cards, spend management, reimbursements
$160–$200K base · $275–$450K OTE
Wide range driven by VC-backed comp variation · card-centric roles trend lower
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. Major card-centric companies are actively experiencing attrition due to office return and relocation policies — a real and ongoing pipeline source.
AP / AR Automation
Accounts payable, accounts receivable, invoice processing, procurement
$200–$225K base · $400–$450K OTE
Mid-range · Category mature · Post-acquisition environments generating consistent movement
Post-PE-acquisition environments in this category have created significant VP-level movement. High exec attrition at some major players is a consistent pipeline source. AP/AR backgrounds translate well to broader OCFO mandates, though candidates sometimes arrive with a feature-selling orientation that needs recalibration for competitive enterprise sales.
Payments Infrastructure
B2B payments, payment rails, treasury payments, cross-border
$175–$225K base · $350–$450K OTE
Slightly lower than treasury · Payments-only backgrounds frequently screened out
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 experience are the right profile — the payments context is additive, not substitutable for enterprise software sales fluency.
GRC-Adjacent / Broader OCFO Platform
Risk, compliance, audit, financial controls, FP&A platforms
$200–$225K base · $400–$500K OTE
Higher OTE expectations relative to OCFO domain depth · 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 depth. Floor expectations often run ahead of what early-stage OCFO mandates can support.
msearchco.com8
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section VI

Why Candidates Move — Ranked Motivators

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

1.

PE-owned / EBITDA optimization mode

Company acquired or shifted post-acquisition. Growth replaced by cost-cutting, equity participation reduced or eliminated. This is the single most common driver of VP-level availability in the market right now — directly tied to the extended PE hold period environment.

Candidates described their companies as being in a holding pattern ahead of exit — new leadership focused on margin, not growth, with limited upside for sales leadership.

2.

Geographic restriction / relocation pressure

Fintech and card companies requiring in-office presence in NY or SF as they approach IPO or growth milestones. This has been one of the most consistent sources of high-attainment VP availability in the past 12–18 months.

Several candidates with strong attainment records were available for a single reason: their employer required relocation to a coastal market they were unwilling to make.

3.

Layoffs / restructuring

Major enterprise software, database, work management, and banking infrastructure companies all contributed candidates following reductions in force. Many of these candidates are strong performers who survived multiple rounds — not underperformers caught in a cut.

4.

Culture or leadership change

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

A recurring pattern: a high-performing rep or manager leaves shortly after being publicly recognized — a leading indicator of cultural deterioration that the next wave of candidates confirms.

5.

Territory and quota resets — capped upside

Teams and territories constantly reshuffled. Quota set above attainment with no accelerator. Earning potential capped structurally rather than by performance. Common at large incumbents and post-acquisition businesses.

Candidates described organizations where exceeding 100% was more likely to result in a higher quota next year than in meaningful financial recognition.

6.

Stage misfit — large-company operators seeking builder work

Candidates with 10–20 years at enterprise incumbents actively seeking an environment where they can own strategy, hire their own team, and see the impact of their decisions. Usually triggered by a specific inflection point — a promotion that didn’t come, a new leader, or watching a peer take a bet that paid off.

Common sentiment: ready to trade brand for ownership, and genuinely motivated to build rather than manage within an established structure.

7.

Contract or job insecurity

Fixed-term contracts following acquisitions. Post-consolidation role elimination uncertainty. These candidates are often in the market quietly — engagement quality varies widely.

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 conversations
Equity / ownership stake91%
Product conviction (must believe first)78%
Hiring authority / autonomy71%
Manager / CEO relationship quality65%
Path to broader responsibility (CRO)58%
Exit narrative / timeline clarity52%
Market size / category trajectory44%
Frequency reflects candidates who raised this factor unprompted · M Search screen data 2024–2026
AE-Level: What Mattered Most
By frequency across 150+ AE-level screen conversations
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 raised this factor unprompted · M Search screen data 2024–2026
Comp Structure Preferences
Equity / Ownership Stake
VP-level equity expectations ranged from 0.15–0.75% depending on stage and background. Multiple candidates described a prior equity event that changed their financial calculus and made ownership a non-negotiable consideration in any future move. Candidates who have seen a meaningful liquidity event are the most sophisticated evaluators of equity structures.
Multiple VP-level candidates described prior equity events — PE exits, IPOs, acquisitions — as the defining financial experiences of their careers, and the primary lens through which they now evaluate new opportunities.
Base vs. Variable Split
AE level strongly prefers 50/50 or base-heavy for income stability. VP level generally accepts 50/50. A strong theme across the dataset: preference for monthly commission payment over quarterly or annual — particularly among candidates with fixed financial obligations.
Ramp / Guarantee
3–6 month ramp guarantees are a near-universal expectation at VP level. Signing bonuses to offset unvested stock at a prior employer are becoming a standard close-stage consideration. Candidates who are leaving unvested equity on the table will price that into their requirements — often explicitly.
Hiring Authority
At VP level, actual control over hiring decisions — not just advisory input — is a gating criterion for the strongest candidates. This was raised unprompted in a meaningful portion of VP-level screens and was occasionally a candidate pass reason when the answer was ambiguous.
A common framing from VP candidates: they wanted to know whether they would be able to build the team they believed the business needed, or whether hiring decisions would be made over them.
msearchco.com10
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section VIII

Quota Attainment and the US Net New Problem

Across screened VP-level candidates in this dataset, attainment in the most recent role ranged from below plan to above 180% — with the majority of qualified finalists clustered between 100% and 140%. Director-level attainment showed a similar distribution. At the AE level, Presidents Club and above-quota performance were common among the candidates who advanced through the screen process.

LevelAttainment Range (Qualified Finalists)Observations
VP Sales / VP Partnerships85%–180%+Most finalists 100–140% · Outliers in both directions · Stage and category context matters
Director of Sales100%–170%+Strong attainment consistency among candidates who advanced · Back-to-back years common
Senior Enterprise AE100%–300%+Wide range · Presidents Club / top rep recognition a useful screen signal
Mid-Market AE90%–140%Tighter distribution · $1M quota with consistent above-quota performance is the benchmark
The US net new problem — plan for it
Companies with an existing installed base outside the US consistently see a meaningful gap between expansion ARR performance and US net new logo performance. This is structural — not a reflection of the hire’s capability. Enterprise expansion sales and US market development are fundamentally different motions. Build compensation structures and performance timelines that account for a 12–18 month net new ramp, and communicate that expectation explicitly during the hire process.
Pass Analysis
Candidate Passes — Most Common Triggers
·Happy / not actively looking
·Recently promoted or just started a new role
·Concern about autonomy or US authority
·Comp gap — floor above the search band
·Equity conflict (existing stock in a competitor or portco overlap)
Recruiter Passes — Most Common Triggers
·Stronger candidates in play
·Short tenures / pattern of moves
·Not senior enough for stage
·Wrong motion: banks not corporates, IC only, compliance-only
·Comp floor above search band
The competing offer problem
Strong VP candidates are running multiple processes simultaneously when you speak to them. Several candidates in this dataset had competing offers in hand or imminent at the time of screen. Others withdrew late because of equity conflicts — existing stock in a competing OCFO company or portfolio overlap. Three weeks from finalist identification to signed offer is the close window benchmark. Internal delays after a finalist decision are not neutral — they are measurable probability reductions.
msearchco.com11
M SearchOffice of the CFO Tech Stack — GTM & Sales Compensation Benchmark
Section IX

Key Insights for Client Conversations

01 — Solve the Island Problem before you start the search
Any company without a US headquarters faces a version of this. The candidate's concern is not about product or comp — it's about authority, air cover, and whether their success will actually be visible. Companies that address this directly and credibly in the first conversation close stronger candidates. Those that leave it implicit lose candidates without knowing why.
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 structure, the timeline, and what it's worth if the business performs. Candidates who have seen a meaningful liquidity event are the most informed evaluators of these conversations — and the hardest to close with base salary alone.
03 — Product conviction is a gating factor — not just a checkbox
Technically qualified candidates passed because they weren't convinced on product or market fit. Building materials that answer these questions before they're asked — win rates, competitive positioning, logo quality, market size narrative — directly improves finalist close rates.
04 — The AE market is bifurcated — define the motion before you define the profile
Mid-market AE and enterprise AE are structurally different profiles with minimal comp overlap. Designing a search that tries to attract both produces a candidate who's wrong for the motion. Decide whether the role is a mid-market or enterprise seat, then build the profile and comp structure accordingly.
05 — Build comp plans for the US new logo ramp reality
US net new development is structurally harder than expansion from an existing installed base. 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. Set the expectation and the timeline during the hire process, not after.
06 — Speed is a competitive advantage at the close
Strong candidates are running multiple processes. Three weeks from finalist to signed offer is the benchmark. Every week of internal delay after a finalist decision is a probability reduction on closing. The companies that move with conviction close candidates that better-resourced competitors lose.
About M Search

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

We run VP Sales, CRO, VP Marketing, VP CS, and VP Partnerships searches for OCFO software companies at the growth and expansion stage. The data in this report was generated from live searches — not surveys. Our practice spans treasury, expense management, AP/AR automation, payments, and adjacent OCFO categories across both US-headquartered and internationally-headquartered companies.

Talk to M Search →

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

msearchco.com12