How Capgemini Pays

Delivery and consulting ladder — A3 through D2

Leadership ladder — E1 through F2

Disclosed executive layer

Track divergence

Hierarchy qualifications and legacy structures

• Only A/B, C and D/E/F are official. The numeric suffixes, the A3 to F2 span and every title in the roles column are reconstructed from salary aggregators, job postings and employee submissions, and Capgemini has never published a global title dictionary.
• Legacy and acquired entities keep their own title and pay markets. Capgemini Invent, Capgemini Engineering, Sogeti, WNS, Cloud4C and the country legal entities have not been shown to be harmonised onto a single grid in any public filing.
• The individual-contributor column thins out above C2. Staff, Principal and Chief Architect titles exist in some units and not others, so a technical specialist and a people manager can share a grade with different work entirely.
• Market evidence is strongest through roughly C and D and becomes an analyst model at E and F. The E1 through F2 rows in this report are extrapolations from the D2 anchor along the report's own variable-target curve, not observations.
• The chief executive sits above F2 and is deliberately kept out of the band table. Carrying a single global €5.94 million figure as a band row would force every city factor towards 1.0 at the top of the ladder and produce nonsense offshore cells.

Peer-level mapping

Office and market catalogue — calibration factors versus Chicago

Capgemini does not publish city-level headcount, so this table cannot rank offices by size. The source bundle prices 113 locations; the 30 shown here were chosen to cover the largest workforces, the widest cost spread and every region the company operates in, from Zurich at 0.95 of the Chicago anchor down to Casablanca at 0.16.

Chicago anchor medians — the basis of every modeled cell

• Chicago carries a 1.00 city index inside the United States and is the baseline the whole country model is built on. New York sits at 1.12, San Francisco at 1.18 and Columbia, South Carolina at 0.90, so the domestic spread alone is about 31 percent.
• India, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Australia have full local band tables built from their own salary records. Every other country is the United States baseline multiplied by a stated country factor and then a city index, which is why those markets show no level-dependent compression here.
• Bangalore is anchored on directly observed Levels.fyi records: A3 at ₹433,064 total against ₹430,549 base, B1 near ₹818k and C1 at ₹1.707m total against ₹1.648m base, cross-checked against Indeed averages of about ₹1.052m for Consultant and ₹1.434m for Senior Consultant.
• India total pay runs at roughly 6 percent of the Chicago anchor at A3 and rises towards 35 percent at F2. That is the widest level-dependent compression in this corpus and it is the reason India carries separate junior and senior factors rather than one national multiplier.
• The United Kingdom crosses the anchor at the top of the ladder: London sits at 0.76 of Chicago at A3 and about 1.04 at F2, so a London senior leader is modelled slightly above a Chicago one while a London graduate is well below.
• The chief executive's €5,940,008 package is a group-level disclosure and is excluded from every city calculation. It appears in the executive section only.

Executive incentive targets — percent of salary

Named-executive outcomes

• There is no fixed option pool in the sense used by technology employers. Each annual employee plan is a separate capital increase carried out under shareholder authorisations and approved on its own terms, so a utilisation percentage against a standing reserve does not exist.
• Employee plan participation has fallen even as coverage has widened. The plan reached 29 countries and 96 percent of employees in 2021 with 17.2 percent participation; by 2025 it covered 36 countries and about 98 percent of employees but only 13.07 percent subscribed.
• The subscribed value has fallen faster than the share count, from €589 million in 2021 to €299 million in 2025, because both the number of subscribers and the amounts individually committed have declined.
• Potential dilution from performance and free shares was reported at about 3.4 percent, which is modest relative to the 8.6 percent of capital already held by employees and corporate officers.
• At the €109.40 illustrative share price used in the source bundle, one Capgemini share is worth about $127.58 or ₹12,174. Multiply any indicative share range by that figure only as a scenario.

Employee ownership and grant volumes, 2025

Vesting — common reported employee schedule

Performance shares use a three-year cliff, not a graded schedule: nothing is delivered before the end of the performance period, and what is delivered depends on the relative total shareholder return, organic free cash flow and social measures as well as continued presence. The employee share purchase plan works on a different clock again, with a five-year holding period from the December 2025 capital increase except on an authorised early exit, and the leveraged structure means a subscriber's economic exposure is not simply the number of shares bought.

Eligibility by hierarchy level

• The employee purchase plan is close to universal: about 98 percent of employees across 36 countries were eligible in 2025, subject to at least three months of service by 14 November 2025 and to local plan rules.
• Free performance shares are selective and Capgemini publishes no minimum eligible grade, no standard grant matrix and no country allocation. The band ranges shown in this report are an analyst model.
• The modelled indicative ranges start at 25 to 150 shares at C1, reach 100 to 350 at D1, 500 to 1,500 at E1 and 2,500 to 7,500 at F1. Nothing routine is identified below C1.
• Because eligibility is selective, this report keeps the band equity column at zero rather than annualising a grant most employees will never receive. A grant should be negotiated and priced as a separate line in an offer.
• Where the FCPE fund structure is not workable in a country, the plan is delivered as a stock appreciation right equivalent, which changes the tax and liquidity profile even though the economics are intended to track.

Named executive target equity

Aiman Ezzat's FY2025 direct compensation of €5,940,008 breaks down as €1,300,000 fixed, €1,402,362 annual variable, €501,852 multi-year variable and €2,735,794 of IFRS value for a 30,000-share performance grant made on 27 October 2025 at a €128.15 reference price and vesting in 2028. The annual variable ran at 107.9 percent of fixed pay and about 98.1 percent of its 110 percent target, with financial objectives at 96.51 percent weighted attainment paying €671,112 and the combined non-financial and individual components paying €731,250.

Board compensation framework

French directors receive fees rather than equity retainers, and the split between amounts granted and amounts actually paid in a year reflects the timing rules of the compensation policy. Directors are not eligible for the performance-share plan in their board capacity; the chief executive receives shares as an executive, not as a director.

Not publicly disclosed

Modeled promotion planning timeline

The modelled time in band runs 1 to 2 years at A3, 2 to 3 years through the A5 to B2 stretch and 2 to 4 years from C1 to D2, becoming case-specific at F1 and above. Those durations are a market model, not a published Capgemini grid, and the company has never confirmed a minimum tenure for any promotion.

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. 1Only one research bundle exists for Capgemini, so there is no second source to reconcile against. Where the bundle itself disagrees with itself the discrepancy is noted rather than resolved.
2. 2The bundle's Total CTC column loads roughly 8 to 10 percent of notional employer benefit cost on top of base and variable. That is employer cost rather than pay, so it has been stripped and every total on this page is rebuilt as base plus target variable. The totals here are therefore lower than the bundle's own tables and are not directly comparable with them.
3. 3The equity column is zero at every band by decision, not by omission. Annualising the modelled indicative share ranges would imply a routine grant that 99.17 percent of employees did not receive in 2025. The ranges are carried in the band source notes and the equity section instead.
4. 4The chief executive is deliberately excluded from the band table. A single global €5.94 million figure would force every city factor towards 1.0 at the top of the ladder and produce absurd offshore cells, so the employee ladder stops at F2 and the executive figure lives only in the executive section.
5. 5F1 and F2 share a seniority value of 12 so that the interpolation ends at the real top of the employee ladder. The two bands therefore receive the same geographic factor even though their anchor pay differs by about 46 percent.
6. 6Level-dependent compression is measurable only for India, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, where the bundle carries a full local band table. Every other market is a flat country factor by construction and carries no top-of-ladder value, which almost certainly understates compression in Poland, Romania, Portugal, Morocco, Mexico, Brazil and the Philippines.
7. 7The insider-trade table shows the December 2025 subscription price as €111 while the plan documents state €110.70. The plan documents are the filing and are treated as correct; the trade rows are converted from the rounded figure.
8. 8FY2026 shows 1,050 labour condition applications on H1BGrader while FY2025 shows 2,879 on MyVisaJobs. The two aggregators classify sponsor entities differently and FY2026 was still open at the snapshot date, so the gap is a measurement artefact rather than a collapse in sponsorship.
9. 9Consolidated and sustainability perimeters differ for the same date: 423,405 employees group-wide at 31 December 2025 against an India figure of 188,055 that excludes WNS and some late acquisitions. Percentages mixing the two perimeters will not reconcile.
10. 10Foreign exchange for AED, SAR, QAR, MAD and several Latin American currencies comes from a supplemental August 2026 snapshot rather than the European Central Bank reference table, because no single central-bank source covered every currency on one date.
11. 11Thirty of the bundle's 113 priced locations are shown. The omitted cities are mostly additional sites within countries already represented, and no city factor has been invented to reach a count.

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 — 24 sources

Capgemini publishes no city-level headcount and no grade distribution, so the only workforce shape available publicly is the country and onshore-offshore split. The consolidated and sustainability perimeters differ for the same reporting date, which is why India and group totals cannot be turned into a clean percentage.