Comp Plan Audit

A comp plan audit evaluates whether the plan produced the behaviors and financial outcomes it was designed to achieve. Did reps pursue the right deals? Did accelerators drive overperformance or windfall payments? Did clawbacks prevent bad deals or just create disputes? The audit closes the loop between plan design and plan performance — and its findings are the foundation for next year's plan.

Comp Plan Audit — FY 2025:
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Metric                    Target    Actual    Verdict
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Avg attainment              85%      91%      [PASS]
Reps at 80%+ attainment     65%      68%      [PASS]
Comp-to-revenue ratio       25%     27.2%     [WARN]
Accelerator cost / total     18%      24%     [WARN]
Clawback rate                <5%     3.2%     [PASS]
Top-performer retention      >90%     88%     [WARN]
New product attach rate      >30%     22%     [FAIL]
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Findings:
1. Comp ratio 2.2pp over target — accelerator
   tiers too aggressive above 130%
2. New product SPIFF did not drive adoption —
   redesign needed
3. Top-performer attrition at 12% — exit
   interviews cite comp competitiveness

Recommendations for FY 2026 plan:
- Flatten accelerator curve above 140%
- Restructure new product incentive as
  blended rate vs. standalone SPIFF
- Increase OTE by 8% to match market

1. Behavioral Audit Did the plan drive the intended behaviors? Check: deal mix (did reps sell what you wanted?), discount rates (did comp incentivize price protection?), deal quality (did clawbacks and margin incentives reduce bad deals?). If the plan incentivized revenue but reps sold low-margin deals, the plan optimized for the wrong outcome.
2. Financial Audit Was the plan affordable? Check: total comp cost vs. budget, comp-to-revenue ratio vs. target, accelerator cost as a percentage of total variable, and fully loaded cost per dollar of revenue. If comp cost exceeded budget by more than 10%, either the attainment distribution surprised you or the plan structure was more expensive than modeled.