Compare sales compensation design across banking, asset management, insurance, and fintech. See how pay mix, variable drivers, and regulatory constraints change by sub-sector — then get a tailored set of recommendations for the one you're designing for.
Financial services isn't a monolith. A commercial banker, a RIA channel wholesaler, a P&C insurance producer, and a fintech account executive all sell financial products — but their comp plans look almost nothing alike. The reason is that the unit of sale, sales cycle, revenue recognition, and regulator watching each sub-sector pushes plan design in fundamentally different directions.
Most compensation mistakes in financial services come from borrowing a plan template from the wrong sub-sector. An AUM-based retention bonus works beautifully in asset management and is nearly useless in transactional banking. A SPIFF on a specific product works in fintech and gets you sanctioned under FINRA.
The question it answers: "Given which financial services sub-sector I'm designing for, what does a best-practice comp plan look like, and how does it differ from the other sub-sectors I might be borrowing from?"
Benchmarks, ranges, and default values in this tool reflect Falcon's practitioner experience across consulting engagements. They are directional starting points, not substitutes for market survey data. For binding compensation decisions, validate key figures against Radford, Mercer, Carta, or WorldatWork survey data for your specific geography, industry, and company stage.
Pick your sub-sector and what to compare against — get a side-by-side + tailored recommendations.
The tool shows both sub-sectors side-by-side. The delta box between them highlights the single most important design difference you should pay attention to. The recommendations at the bottom are ordered — start at #1 and work down.
We've built sales comp plans across banking, wealth, insurance, and fintech. Book a 30-minute call to walk through your specific sub-sector, role, and regulatory envelope.
Book a free consultation →Pick the sub-sector where the role actually earns. A banker who also cross-sells investment products is primarily a banker — pick Commercial / Retail Banking and then use the comparison slot for Asset Management to see the secondary mechanics. Never design a single plan trying to serve two sub-sectors equally; build two plans, or build one plan with a clear primary sector and a capped secondary component.
FINRA's guidance centers on avoiding incentives that create conflicts of interest. You can pay on production, AUM growth, retention, and new accounts. You generally cannot pay product-specific SPIFFs (differential comp for one security over another), and you must avoid any structure that could be seen as incentivizing unsuitable recommendations. When in doubt, flat or AUM-based structures survive regulatory review; product-tied variable pay invites scrutiny.
Revenue mechanic. A fintech sells annual software subscriptions (ARR); a bank sells transactional products (deposits, loans, fees) with very different margin and recognition. Fintech comp follows SaaS norms (50/50 mix, ARR-on-plan, accelerators over quota). Bank comp follows NII and fee norms (70/30 or 80/20 mix, scorecard-based, modest accelerators). Same customer, different economics, different plan.
Yes. Under a fiduciary standard, any comp structure that creates financial incentives to push one product over another — especially one paying higher comp — becomes a prohibited transaction unless specific exemptions apply. The practical outcome is level-fee or flat-rate compensation within asset classes, reduced product-tied SPIFFs, and much heavier documentation around any comp differential. Plans that worked fine under the suitability standard often don't survive the fiduciary one.