How Agilent Technologies Pays

Normalised professional ladder — L0 through L8

Executive and board — L9 through Board

Disclosed executive layer

Track divergence

Hierarchy qualifications and legacy structures

• Agilent job postings and salary datasets expose modifiers such as Intermediate, Advanced, Career and Expert, and historical visa records also contain Master, but the company has never published a mapping from those modifiers to a numeric grade.
• The crosswalk is most reliable for engineering, software and scientific roles in the United States, India, Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany, and least reliable in China, Japan and Denmark where the public sample is thin.
• Vice president, senior vice president, business president and chief executive are corporate titles rather than a hidden grade number, so this report treats them as title tiers.
• Agilent's heritage includes Hewlett-Packard and some pension service rules bridge eligible legacy service, but no public document establishes a surviving Hewlett-Packard grade structure or a post-separation band harmonisation table.
• The non-employee director row is a governance package, not an employment band, and is excluded from the range chart along with the two executive rows.

Peer-level mapping

Office and market catalogue — calibration factors versus Santa Clara

Agilent publishes country and regional headcount but no city-level employee counts. The disclosed anchors are more than 5,200 employees in the United States, more than 2,500 in China across more than 50 cities, more than 1,500 in India across nine locations, about 1,260 in Germany of which about 1,081 are at Waldbronn, more than 600 in Singapore, more than 560 in Japan across five sites, more than 550 in the United Kingdom across four principal sites and nearly 400 across Australia and New Zealand.

Santa Clara anchor medians — the basis of every modeled cell

• The Santa Clara column is the anchor. L0 through L8 base medians are triangulated from Agilent United States careers postings, employer-posted job ranges surfaced in live listings, Levels.fyi and Glassdoor, and the L9 through board rows come from the proxy statement.
• Anchor total compensation is base plus target bonus plus the midpoint of the modelled annualised equity range. It deliberately excludes the illustrative benefit load the source bundle used for employer cost, because a benefit load is not pay.
• The Wilmington employer-posted Associate Vice President of Research and Development range of $197,000 to $308,000 is the single most useful public United States data point above director level and anchors the lower half of the L8 row.
• India total compensation runs at about 9 percent of the Santa Clara anchor at the most junior band and rises towards 40 percent at the top of the professional ladder, because the Indian package narrows sharply once discretionary equity enters.
• Denmark and Australia run the opposite way: Glostrup sits close to Santa Clara at entry level and falls to roughly two thirds of it at senior levels, which is a statutory-floor effect rather than a seniority premium.
• The named executive and chief executive rows are proxy disclosures shown for comparison only. They are global executive values, not a local pay range in any selected city.

Executive incentive targets — percent of salary

Named-executive outcomes

• The purchase plan is the only equity number in the whole disclosure that can be turned into a clean utilisation figure: 31,000,000 authorised less 23,234,771 available is 7,765,229 shares, or 25.0 percent of the ceiling.
• The 2018 Stock Plan cannot be treated the same way. Full-value awards consume the fungible pool differently from options, and forfeitures, legacy plan recycling and substitute awards all move the reserve, so an authorised-minus-available calculation would mislead without a complete award ledger.
• At the FY2025 close 914,000 options were outstanding at a weighted-average exercise price of $134, of which 586,000 were exercisable. FY2025 grants were 240,000 options at a weighted-average exercise price of $137.
• Share-based compensation expense has been essentially flat at $129 million in FY2025, $130 million in FY2024 and $112 million in FY2023, which is consistent with equity being concentrated in a small senior population rather than spread across the workforce.

Equity plan capacity and grant activity

Vesting — common reported employee schedule

Restricted stock units and stock options granted under the 2018 Stock Plan generally vest 25 percent a year over four years, and options carry a maximum ten-year term. Performance share units are different: they cliff-vest after a three-year performance period and settle between 0 and 200 percent of target. Executive awards issued through FY2025 were generally subject to a one-year post-vest holding period on top of the vesting schedule. Purchase plan shares have no post-purchase vesting at all, though trading windows and local tax rules still apply. Non-employee director stock grants vest in full immediately on grant.

Eligibility by hierarchy level

• There is no publicly disclosed minimum grade for a recurring restricted stock unit grant anywhere in Agilent's filings or careers pages. Any source claiming a complete internal grant matrix should be treated sceptically unless it can produce an Agilent plan or offer document.
• Malaysia is the one useful exception. Agilent's Malaysia careers page explicitly advertises restricted stock units alongside the stock purchase plan, which proves grant equity reaches below the named executive population in at least one country.
• The modelled annualised grant ranges used here are zero at L0 through L3, zero to $8,500 at L4, zero to $20,500 at L5, $8,200 to $60,000 at L6, $19,000 to $145,000 at L7 and $69,000 to $600,000 at L8. These are analytical envelopes, not observed grants.
• Grant timing is the one part of the process with real visibility: annual named executive grants are generally approved at the first Compensation Committee meeting of the fiscal year, which is why the November grant dates recur in the Form 4 record.
• The purchase plan is available where locally implemented, and country benefit pages confirm it in the United States, India, Australia, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Japan and Denmark.

Indicative annual grant value by band — Santa Clara

Annualized planning value (±25%), not the face value of every new-hire grant. Share equivalents use the $154.17 reference price at 25 August 2026, 15:46 UTC and ignore plan valuation rules and PSU performance. Highlighted rows are disclosed grant-date stock awards.

Named executive target equity

Two details in the FY2025 table are easy to misread. Simon May's cash column includes a $500,000 sign-on instalment on top of his $472,395 incentive payout, which is buyout compensation for a lateral hire rather than plan pay. Robert McMahon's $5.54 million total is a grant-date accounting figure for awards he forfeited on resignation, so his realised outcome was far lower. Adam Elinoff's disclosed joining package sets a useful benchmark for the layer immediately below the named executives: a $700,000 base, an 80 percent annual incentive target, a $1.1 million restricted stock unit target and a $1.65 million performance share unit target for FY2026, plus sign-on cash and equity awards.

Board compensation framework

FY2025 actual director totals ran from $264,628 for Pascal Soriot and $269,149 for Judy Gawlik Brown, both partial-year figures, to $480,426 for Koh Boon Hwee as independent chair. Most continuing directors landed at $325,426 to $350,426. No stock options were granted to directors.

Not publicly disclosed

Modeled promotion planning timeline

Two directional data points exist and both should be treated carefully. The 2026 proxy statement says FY2025 salary increases of 4 to 7 percent for several named executives were generally consistent with typical increases provided to the broader Agilent employee population, and an April 2025 employee question-and-answer response from a United States research and development employee cited a 4 percent annual raise. Neither is a company commitment and neither covers any specific country or level. Executive salary and grant decisions are considered at the first Compensation Committee meeting of the fiscal year using individual performance, peer data, strategic goals and tally sheets, which is why the November grant date recurs in the Form 4 record.

Dataset summary

City-level H-1B wage history

All-years aggregates. P25/P75 are rounded reconstruction values marked modeled; medians and record counts are the stronger fields.

Selected title / worksite records

Evidence classification

Explicit “Not publicly disclosed” index

Known gaps and diligence before relying on a cell

1. 1The two bundles use different foreign exchange snapshots, an IMF SDR cross-rate set dated 25 August 2026 and an ECB set dated 24 August 2026 with a Reuters rupee close. This report standardises on the 25 August 2026 IMF set because it covers every currency used here; the two differ by well under half a percent on every pair.
2. 2The bundles quote different share price snapshots, $154.17 at 15:46 UTC on 25 August 2026 and $153.43 at the 24 August 2026 close. This report uses $154.17, which is traceable to the later of the two.
3. 3The bundles describe the FY2025 incentive outcome differently. One reports company funding of 85.8 percent with business-group funding of 90.0, 84.7 and 76.5 percent; the other says final named executive payouts ranged from 92 to 108 percent after individual differentiation. Both are correct at different stages of the calculation, and this report shows the funding record and the individual outcomes separately rather than reconciling them.
4. 4The named executive attainment percentages here are computed as the disclosed payout divided by the disclosed salary times the disclosed target percentage. Because the salary column is the amount actually paid during the fiscal year rather than the year-end rate, those ratios run from 93 to 110 percent while the proxy narrative describes a 92 to 108 percent range.
5. 5Anchor total compensation excludes the illustrative 10 to 12 percent country benefit load that the larger research bundle used to build employer cost. That load is a modelling input, not pay, so including it would inflate every total by roughly a tenth against the way the rest of this report reads.
6. 6Base and total calibration factors are identical for every city because the model applies the same bonus target and equity percentage by level worldwide. Any genuine country variation in bonus design or equity eligibility is not publicly disclosed and would move the total factors apart.
7. 7The L8 equity cell is the least evidenced number in the report. It is the midpoint of a modelled 30 to 150 percent of base range, and the only supporting public observation is an employer-posted associate vice president base range with no equity component attached.
8. 8The China, Japan and Denmark location factors rest on very small public samples, described by the source bundle itself as low to low-medium confidence. Treat those three markets as directional only.
9. 9The two bundles list slightly different peer sets. One uses Thermo Fisher, Danaher, Waters and Bruker; the other adds Revvity. This report merges all five, and the Revvity total of $13.810 million is quoted at the three-decimal precision the source gives rather than to the dollar.
10. 10One chief executive Form 4, a 27 February 2026 tax withholding of 279 shares, is recorded without a price because the reviewed extract did not capture one. Its value is shown as zero rather than estimated.
11. 11No companywide FY2026 salary hike percentage, pay freeze, salary cut or off-cycle correction was located in any source, and Agilent's fiscal Q3 2026 results were scheduled for 26 August 2026, after both research cutoffs.

FX rates used — 1 USD equals, snapshot 2026-08-25

Single-date conversion layer for comparability; it ignores payroll-date FX, tax, purchasing power, benefits valuation and hedging. Compensation intelligence, not legal, tax, investment, immigration or employment advice.

Source register — 17 sources

The net picture is flat: Agilent ended FY2025 with the same headcount it carried at the end of FY2023, having cut roughly 3 percent of the workforce in between and rebuilt it. Two restructuring programmes ran back to back, an approximately 500-position FY2024 reduction costing $73 million and an $81 million FY2025 management-structure optimisation expected to deliver $75 million to $80 million of annual savings with substantial completion by the second quarter of FY2026. Agilent publishes no attrition rate and no city-level headcount, so the only geographic signal in the filings is the three-region split.