In my conversations with sales leaders across the UK this autumn, two compensation models keep emerging as the frontrunners for 2027 planning: heavily fixed structures with modest variable elements, or heavily variable structures with modest base salaries. The pendulum between these approaches swings every few years, but the calculus for 2027 feels different. Let's break down what's actually working in the market.
The core models compared
| Element | Fixed-heavy model | Variable-heavy model |
|---|---|---|
| Base salary | Higher proportion | Lower proportion |
| Commission structure | Typically flat rate, capped | Accelerators, uncapped potential |
| Bonus triggers | Company/team performance | Individual performance |
| Best for attracting | Risk-averse, stability-focused candidates | High-performers, ambitious candidates |
| Typical industries | SaaS, enterprise tech, regulated sectors | Startups, traditional sales, property |
| Retention impact | Higher in uncertain markets | Higher in growth markets |
| Cash flow for employer | Predictable, higher fixed costs | Variable with performance, lower base cost |
Beyond Tick Boxes: Diversity Recruitment Strategies That Actually Transform UK Workplaces
Master the Virtual Hot Seat: 7 Video Interview Techniques Recruiters Don't Tell You
How to Master 'Tell Me About Yourself' Interview Question: UK Expert Insights
Fixed-heavy compensation
The shift toward higher base salaries with smaller commission packages has gained significant momentum recently. Among mid-to-large tech companies especially, the higher base salary with smaller variable component is becoming standard rather than exceptional.
Why? Because the candidates worth hiring increasingly demand it.
When fixed-heavy wins
This model absolutely shines when:
- You're recruiting in competitive talent markets where candidates have multiple offers
- Your sales cycles are complex and lengthy (6+ months)
- Team collaboration matters more than individual heroics
- Your products require deep technical knowledge and consultative selling
One hiring manager at a financial SaaS company told me, "We tried the low base, high commission structure for years. Know what happened? Our best people left for competitors offering £95k bases instead of our £65k. The 'big commission potential' wasn't worth the mortgage uncertainty."
The stability offered by a high base salary has become particularly attractive in sectors where the cost of living crunch continues to bite. When candidates can't predict their monthly income, they get nervous, and nervous salespeople rarely perform at their best.
Variable-heavy compensation
The traditional commission-heavy structure still thrives in certain sectors. This approach ties compensation directly to results through lower base salaries balanced by significant commission potential.
When variable-heavy wins
This model proves most effective when:
- Individual contribution directly drives revenue
- Sales cycles are relatively short and transactional
- You want to attract natural risk-takers and high-performers
- Cash flow constraints limit fixed salary commitments
For roles where individual contribution clearly drives results, field sales, business development, and many SME-focused positions, the high-commission approach still works brilliantly. It attracts hungry, confident performers who back themselves to exceed targets.
I placed a sales director at a scale-up who chose a £70k base with uncapped commission over a competitor's £110k base with modest bonus. He's since tracked toward a £190k annual income. Not everyone has that appetite for risk, but for those who do, the rewards can be substantial.
Which model to choose for 2027?
Your choice should be guided by several strategic factors. What follows isn't a neat formula, but rather the messy reality of what actually works:
Choose fixed-heavy when:
- Your product has a long sales cycle requiring consultative, expertise-driven approaches
- You're competing for talent against tech giants or financial services
- Team collaboration drives success more than individual contribution
- You need specialists with deep product knowledge who can't be quickly replaced
- You're in a sector experiencing compensation inflation (like enterprise SaaS)
Choose variable-heavy when:
- Your sales process is relatively straightforward with shorter cycles
- Cash flow limitations restrict your ability to commit to high fixed costs
- You want to attract entrepreneurial, risk-tolerant candidates
- Individual contribution clearly correlates with revenue generation
- You're hiring in markets with traditional sales cultures (real estate, traditional B2B)
I've seen too many businesses adopt compensation structures because "that's what our industry does" rather than because it serves their specific situation. The market is evolving rapidly, what worked in 2025 isn't necessarily what will work in 2027.
One thing I'd suggest? Whatever model you choose, ensure your recruitment approach reflects the type of candidate you're targeting. If you're offering high-variable compensation, your job adverts should highlight earning potential and attract hunters. If you're offering stability, emphasise career development and the predictability of earnings.
Hybrid models gaining ground
Between these two approaches, we're seeing interesting hybrid models emerge. Some companies now offer a "sliding scale" where salespeople can actually choose their compensation mix within parameters, taking slightly less base for higher commission potential, or vice versa.
Others are implementing creative recruitment strategies with guaranteed minimums during ramp-up periods, especially for senior hires moving from secure positions.
The most sophisticated compensation structures I'm seeing incorporate diversity considerations too. Companies are recognising that heavily variable compensation can perpetuate pay gaps and reduce diversity in sales teams. Progressive sales leaders are auditing their compensation data across demographics and making adjustments accordingly.
One concrete step for this week
If you're planning your sales compensation structure for 2027, start by analysing your last two years of sales data. What percentage of your team actually hit their targets? What's the distribution curve? If less than 60% of your team is hitting quota, you likely have either a quota-setting problem or a compensation structure that isn't properly motivating your specific talent pool.
Audit this data, then have frank conversations with both your top performers and those who left recently. Their feedback will tell you more than any industry benchmark about whether your structure needs a complete overhaul or just thoughtful tweaking for 2027.
