How Amphenol Pays

Production ladder — B0 through B1

Professional and technical ladder — B2 through B6

Management ladder — B7 through B9

Executive

Disclosed executive layer

Track divergence

Hierarchy qualifications and legacy structures

• Amphenol has never published a Band 1 to N or Grade A to Z architecture, and its decentralised acquisition model makes inherited local titles likely to persist for years after a deal closes.
• The January 2026 CCS acquisition added roughly 20,000 employees. No public grade, title or benefit harmonisation schedule was found for that population or for earlier acquisitions.
• Peer level mapping is interpretive. Amphenol confirms no equivalence to TE Connectivity, Molex, Aptiv, Eaton, Hubbell or Sensata levels, so every peer row here is an analyst judgement.
• The two research bundles used different ladder shapes, a twelve-band B0 to B11 scheme and a nine-level L0 to L8 scheme. Both are analytical; this report follows the twelve-band scheme because its city calibration is complete.
• Only the corporate officer, division president, chief executive and non-employee director tiers correspond to titles Amphenol itself discloses. Everything below B10 is inferred from public postings and salary submissions.

Peer-level mapping

Office and market catalogue — calibration factors versus Wallingford, CT

Amphenol publishes a business directory rather than an office list, and the two research bundles disagreed on several requested cities. Endicott, Nottingham, Munich, Chennai, Ciudad Juárez and Reynosa are plausible operations that the second bundle could not independently re-verify; Sydney and Tokyo are carried as market models because the directory currently points to Melbourne and Shiga. Those rows are useful for planning but should not be cited as confirmed Amphenol sites.

Wallingford, CT anchor medians — the basis of every modeled cell

• Wallingford, Connecticut is the anchor. It is the corporate headquarters address in Amphenol's SEC filings and the only city where enterprise functions, executive leadership and a visa wage record all coincide.
• Nashua, New Hampshire is the deepest United States evidence outside the headquarters, with thirteen compiled visa wage observations spanning $112,000 at the twenty-fifth percentile to $145,000 at the seventy-fifth, on a $130,000 median.
• Pune is the India reference market at a factor of 1.00 within India, with Bangalore modelled 8 percent above it and Chennai 5 percent below. AmbitionBox carries 128 associate-engineer, 79 quality-engineer, 61 assistant-manager and 46 engineer salary submissions for Pune.
• China is the largest evidenced manufacturing geography and the reason the global pay ratio is so wide. The proxy's 2025 median employee was a direct-labour worker in China on $18,816 of total annual compensation.
• Australia and Japan need care. The current corporate directory points to Melbourne rather than Sydney and to Shiga rather than Tokyo, so those two rows are market models carried for coverage rather than verified Amphenol sites.

Executive incentive targets — percent of salary

Named-executive outcomes

• The plan title contains the words Stock Purchase, but current disclosures describe option grants rather than a payroll-deduction employee stock purchase plan. There is no evidenced discounted share-purchase scheme, so it is analysed here purely as an employee option plan.
• Using the 41,258,559 shares still available against the 200 million authorised, about 79.4 percent of the reservation has been consumed or committed historically. That is a capacity calculation, not current dilution and not the same as options outstanding.
• The lowest option-eligible level is not publicly disclosed. Selection is committee-driven and considers salary, prior awards, management contribution and responsibility, so no threshold band can be inferred from filings.
• Do not divide total options granted by recipient count to estimate a typical grant. The May 2025 grant of 7,900,943 options across about 1,170 employees implies an arithmetic mean of roughly 6,752 options, but distribution is heavily skewed towards the executive tier, where single grants run from 70,690 to 464,989.
• All counts and prices are pre-split. The two-for-one distribution expected on 2 September 2026 will double share counts and halve exercise prices without changing economics.

Option plan position at 30 June 2026

Vesting — common reported employee schedule

The verified company schedule is five years, not the four-year assumption common in technology-company templates, and the 2026 proxy confirms that every currently outstanding employee option grant carries it. Options generally have ten-year terms. Death or disability can accelerate vesting subject to service rules, and retirement can receive continued vesting at the compensation committee's discretion under specified age and service thresholds. Five-year vesting plus a ten-year term is what produced the $1.120 billion of intrinsic value exercised in the first half of 2026.

Eligibility by hierarchy level

• Bands B0 through B5 show no evidence of routine grants. Local cash, shift and retention incentives are the more likely long-term reward at those levels.
• Band B6 is the first level where a selective grant becomes plausible, modelled at zero to 1,000 options with a 250-option median, but Amphenol publishes no threshold.
• Bands B7 and B8 are the plausible key-employee population, modelled at 500 to 5,000 and 3,000 to 15,000 options respectively. Awards remain discretionary and are not an entitlement.
• Band B9, the operating-company and group general managers, is the core option population, modelled at 12,000 to 80,000 options, with size driven by salary, prior awards, contribution and scope.
• Band B10 grants are directly disclosed. On 22 May 2026 the named officers received between 70,690 and 133,161 options each at a $132.06 exercise price.
• About 1,170 employees received the principal May 2025 grant against a workforce of more than 170,000. That is the single most useful fact for judging whether a given role is likely to be option-eligible.

Indicative annual grant value by band — Wallingford, CT

Annualized planning value (±25%), not the face value of every new-hire grant. Share equivalents use the $158.81 reference price at 2026-08-25 and ignore plan valuation rules and PSU performance. Highlighted rows are disclosed grant-date stock awards.

Named executive target equity

The 2026 salary round took effect in January and shows how Amphenol separates the general increase from targeted moves. Luc Walter's 4.3 percent rise to $850,000 was described in the proxy as in line with the average increase generally given to United States salaried employees, which makes it the closest thing to a disclosed company-wide merit budget. Craig Lampo's 13.0 percent rise to $825,000 and William Doherty's 8.7 percent rise to $815,000 were market and scope adjustments. The chief executive received 5.4 percent to $1,650,000, and Peter Straub 5.0 percent to $630,000.

Board compensation framework

Director equity and employee equity are structurally different at Amphenol. Non-employee directors receive restricted common shares under the 2024 plan, which carry value at any share price, while employees receive options that carry value only above the exercise price. Directors are governance, not an employee band, and their package should not be read as evidence of what any employee level receives.

Not publicly disclosed

Modeled promotion planning timeline

The modelled intervals are market heuristics rather than company disclosures: roughly 0.5 to 2 years from B0 to B1, 1 to 3 years to B2, then 2 to 4 years through B3, B4 and B5, 2 to 5 years through B6 and B7, 3 to 6 years to B8, 3 to 7 years to B9, and role-driven movement into B10. Amphenol publishes no time-in-grade expectation, and in a portfolio of roughly 150 businesses the speed of progression is governed far more by the growth of the individual operating company than by any central framework.

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 research bundles used different ladder shapes. The first built a twelve-band B0 to B11 scheme with complete city calibration; the second built a nine-level L0 to L8 scheme and declined to publish city ranges at all. This report follows the twelve-band scheme because only it carries the location factors, and omits its B11 chief executive row from the band ladder because a single global figure cannot be scaled by a city factor; the chief executive is covered in full in the executive section instead.
2. 2The bundles disagree on the FX snapshot. Both are dated 25 August 2026 but the first uses 95.714 rupees, 0.733579 pounds and 1.67958 New Zealand dollars per United States dollar while the second uses 95.3594, 0.733115 and 1.67336. This report uses the first bundle's rates throughout because its location tables were built on them; conversions differ by under half a percent.
3. 3The research bundle computed total reward as base plus a 12 to 22 percent country benefit load plus cash variable plus option value. That load is employer cost rather than pay and has been stripped from every figure here, so anchor totals in this report are 11 to 18 percent below the bundle's published totals at junior bands. Base plus bonus plus equity now reconciles exactly to the total shown.
4. 4The bundles disagree on the peer set. The first cites Aptiv at $19.250 million and Sensata at $12.588 million; the second cites Hubbell at $10.346752 million and Eaton at $7.923677 million. All are carried here. The Aptiv and Sensata rows name no individual executive in either source, so no name is asserted.
5. 5The bundles disagree on the chief executive's FY2025 option grant. The first records 464,989 options granted on 22 May 2026 under the 2026 cycle; the second records 602,344 options for the FY2025 grant with a $14,649,006 grant-date fair value. Both are consistent because they describe different grant years, but the distinction is easy to lose.
6. 6Bands B6 through B9 and every equity figure below the named executive tier are modelled option counts multiplied by the $39.40 average grant-date fair value from the second quarter of 2026. Amphenol discloses no grant range by level, so these are the least reliable figures in the report and should not be treated as an entitlement.
7. 7The second bundle could not independently re-verify Endicott, Nottingham, Munich, Chennai, Ciudad Juárez or Reynosa in the corporate business directory, and found that the directory points to Melbourne rather than Sydney and to Shiga rather than Tokyo. Those eight rows are carried for coverage with the discrepancy recorded in their presence field.
8. 8Production and technician bands B0 and B1 are calibrated on the same city factors as the professional bands, but Amphenol's frontline manufacturing population is governed by statutory wage structures, union or award coverage and shift premiums that this model does not capture. The $18,816 China median employee is the only company-sourced datapoint for that population anywhere in the filings.
9. 9H-1B entity fragmentation is unresolved. Amphenol Corporation and Amphenol TCS file separately and broader aggregators include Amphenol FCI USA and Amphenol Advanced Sensors, so the parent median of $110,119 and the h1bdata parent median of $90,237 describe overlapping but different record sets.
10. 10No consolidated post-CCS headcount was published. The ~170,000 figure is at 31 December 2025 and the approximately 20,000 CCS employees joined on 12 January 2026, so the current total is higher by an amount Amphenol has not confirmed.

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 — 18 sources

Amphenol publishes no headcount by city, no consolidated attrition rate and no three-year median-remuneration series, so workforce analysis has to rest on the two pay-ratio medians and the aggregate totals above. The absence of an attrition figure is notable for a company of this size and is recorded as not publicly disclosed rather than estimated.