Common Sales Commission Structures

Sales commission structures are more than mere payment tools—they’re strategic levers that align your sales team’s behavior with your company’s objectives. Not every commission plan is created equal, however. They differ along key dimensions: the compensation mix (how total pay is divided between fixed and variable components), the performance basis (the metric used to calculate commissions), and the incentive design (whether the focus is on individual performance, teamwork, or market segmentation). Understanding these dimensions is essential for tailoring a commission plan that fits your industry, sales cycle, and team dynamics. Below, we review a comprehensive set of common—and some not-so-common—commission structures.

I. Compensation Mix Models

Straight Commission:
In the straight commission model, sales representatives earn solely from the deals they close, with no base salary to cushion their income. This pure performance-based approach offers significant earnings potential for top performers, directly motivating them to maximize each sale. However, it also introduces income volatility and the risk of financial stress, sometimes even encouraging overly aggressive tactics. This model is best suited for industries with high-ticket items or for seasoned, entrepreneurial sales professionals who can thrive under such pressure.

Base Salary Plus Commission:
This model combines the security of a fixed base salary with the upside of variable commission linked to sales performance. By ensuring a steady income, it reduces financial pressure while still rewarding strong results. The trade-off is that the higher fixed cost can be challenging for the organization, and a generous base may sometimes reduce the urgency to close deals. Overall, this approach works well for businesses with complex or lengthy sales cycles that rely on deep customer relationships and trust.

Draw Against Commission:
Under a draw against commission model, sales reps receive advance payments—often referred to as “draws”—which are later recouped from their earned commissions. This structure helps ease the early-stage cash flow issues new or transitioning representatives may face, providing stability during ramp-up periods. However, it comes with the risk of accumulating debt if sales targets are not met, requiring meticulous tracking and management to prevent disputes. Organizations onboarding new talent or operating in markets with extended sales cycles typically find this model most beneficial.

II. Performance Basis Models

Revenue Commission:
With the revenue commission approach, a fixed percentage is paid on the total revenue generated from each sale. Its straightforward calculation directly ties compensation to top-line growth, making it appealing for companies that prioritize rapid revenue expansion. Yet, this simplicity can be a double-edged sword, as it ignores profitability and cost efficiency, potentially incentivizing high sales volumes at the expense of margins. This model is particularly effective for early-stage companies focused on rapid scaling.

Gross Margin Commission:
In contrast, the gross margin commission model bases payouts on the profit margin of each sale rather than on overall revenue. This structure encourages sales teams to prioritize higher-margin products and to be cautious about discounting, thereby aligning closely with profitability goals. The downside is that calculating gross margins can be complex and may lead to disagreements over cost allocations. Businesses with variable profit margins that need to balance volume with profitability will find this model most appropriate.

Residual Commission:
The residual commission structure rewards sales teams with ongoing payouts for recurring revenue or customer renewals. This model is common in subscription-based environments, where the emphasis is on building long-term customer relationships and ensuring retention. While it provides a form of passive income and encourages customer loyalty, it also means that earnings may be delayed or become unpredictable if churn rates increase. Industries such as SaaS or membership services, where customer lifetime value is paramount, typically benefit the most from this approach.

III. Incentive Design Models

Tiered Commission:
Tiered commission plans increase the commission rate as sales reps hit predefined revenue or performance milestones. This structure provides a strong incentive to exceed targets, rewarding high performers with attractive, escalating rates. On the flip side, it can lead to end-of-period rushes or even burnout if the pressure becomes too intense, and it requires careful monitoring to manage multiple performance tiers effectively. Such a model is ideal for high-growth environments where overachievement is both possible and desired.

Accelerator Commission:
A close variant to tiered commissions, accelerator plans boost commission rates significantly once a rep surpasses their quota. This design is intended to further motivate salespeople not just to meet but to exceed their targets, driving exceptional performance and revenue growth. However, accelerators may also lead to increased compensation costs if targets are routinely exceeded, necessitating precise target setting to strike the right balance between cost and incentive. Mature sales teams in highly competitive markets often thrive under this structure.

Team-Based Commission:
The team-based commission model pools commissions and distributes them based on collective performance rather than solely on individual achievements. This structure fosters collaboration, shared accountability, and a cooperative approach to reaching targets, which can be especially beneficial in complex sales environments. The primary drawback is that individual contributions might be diluted, potentially leaving top performers feeling undervalued. This model is best suited for environments where sales success depends on coordinated efforts and joint problem-solving.

Split Commission:
In scenarios where multiple sales reps collaborate on a deal, the split commission model divides the commission according to a predetermined formula. This approach recognizes the contributions of all involved parties, encouraging collaboration on larger or more complex deals. However, it can lead to disputes over fair allocation and adds a layer of complexity in establishing a transparent and equitable method. It is especially relevant in settings where joint selling is common, such as in enterprise deals or cross-functional account management.

Territory Volume Commission:
Territory volume commissions base payouts on sales performance within a defined geographic area or market segment. This model drives localized market penetration and assigns clear accountability for regional growth. While it encourages sales reps to focus on building their territory, results can be significantly influenced by external market conditions, and unclear boundaries may even spark territorial disputes. Companies with well-segmented markets or diverse product lines that require focused regional strategies will find this model particularly useful.

Additional Considerations

Beyond these primary models, organizations often make further refinements to their commission plans. Some companies impose caps on commission earnings to control costs, while others prefer uncapped models to fully reward exceptional performance. Additionally, many firms supplement their primary commission structures with spiffs or short-term bonuses to drive the sales of new products or stimulate activity during slower periods. Though these incentives are not standalone commission structures, they serve as powerful adjuncts that further motivate the sales team.

Conclusion

Selecting the right sales commission structure requires a nuanced understanding of how different models address your company’s compensation mix, the performance metrics that are most critical, and the incentive design that best motivates your team. There is no one-size-fits-all solution—each structure offers distinct advantages and challenges. By carefully evaluating these models and incorporating elements like accelerators, split commissions, or spiffs as needed, you can develop a customized plan that drives performance, rewards excellence, and aligns with your strategic objectives. Regular review and refinement of your commission strategy will ensure that it continues to benefit both your salesforce and your overall business growth.

‍