Two years ago, equity was a secondary consideration for most candidates evaluating roles at space companies. The conversation started and ended with base salary, bonus structure, and whether the role required relocation. Equity came up occasionally, usually late in the process, and usually as an upside rather than a deciding factor.
That has changed. Across the mid-to-senior talent market in the US space sector, equity is increasingly the variable that determines whether a candidate says yes or walks away.
Why Equity Moved to the Center
The shift isn’t arbitrary. It’s driven by what candidates have watched happen over the past three to four years.
They’ve seen companies in the sector go from Series A to IPO. They’ve watched colleagues at early-stage space companies accumulate equity that turned into real wealth. And they’ve done the mental math: a VP of Business Development at a company that reaches a $2 billion valuation holds equity worth significantly more than three years of salary premiums at a competitor.
For candidates in the 30 to 45 age range – the bracket where most senior hires in space sit – this calculation is reshaping how they evaluate opportunities. They’re not chasing short-term salary bumps; they’re looking for companies where the long-term trajectory makes the move worth the risk. And equity is how they participate in that trajectory.
This doesn’t mean base salary has become irrelevant. It means that for the best candidates, a competitive base is the floor, not the ceiling. The equity component is what separates the offer they accept from the one they decline.
How Companies Get It Wrong
The most common equity mistake isn’t offering too little. It’s presenting equity in a way that makes it impossible for the candidate to evaluate.
When a company tells a candidate they’ll receive “0.1% equity” or “$50,000 in stock options,” that number means nothing without context. The candidate needs to understand the strike price relative to the last valuation, the vesting schedule and cliff, what percentage of the fully diluted cap table that represents, how much dilution is expected before the next round, and what the equity is worth in various exit scenarios.
Companies that present equity as a number without this context create suspicion rather than excitement. The candidate either assumes the equity is designed to obscure a below-market cash offer, or they lack the information needed to compare it meaningfully against a competing offer that’s presented with more transparency.
The companies that close candidates on equity are the ones that present it as a structured conversation, not a line item. They walk the candidate through the cap table, explain the dilution path, and describe realistic exit scenarios. They treat the equity discussion as an investment conversation — because that’s exactly what it is from the candidate’s perspective.
The European Parent Problem
There’s a structural issue that affects a growing number of space companies hiring in the US: the equity approval chain.
Several of the companies we work with in the US space sector are subsidiaries or regional operations of European parent companies. The US hiring manager understands that equity is essential to close senior talent. But the authority to approve equity grants sits with a global CEO or board that operates on a different timeline and often a different set of assumptions about compensation norms.
The result is a gap between what the market requires and what the company can deliver at the speed the candidate expects. We’ve seen two offers declined in the past three months specifically because the company couldn’t get equity sign-off before the candidate’s decision deadline. In both cases, the candidates went to competitors who had the authority to include equity in the initial offer.
This isn’t a compensation problem. It’s an internal process problem that manifests as a talent loss. For companies with this structure, the equity conversation needs to be resolved before the search starts — not after the preferred candidate is sitting on an offer and waiting for an answer that may take three weeks to arrive.
When Equity Isn’t on the Table
Not every company can offer equity. Some are too early. Some have corporate structures that don’t allow it. Some are subsidiaries where equity doesn’t exist in a form that’s meaningful to a US employee.
For these companies, the answer isn’t to ignore the equity gap and hope candidates won’t notice. They will. The answer is to acknowledge it directly and compensate for it in other ways that signal long-term commitment: a higher base, a meaningful retention bonus structure, a clearly articulated path to a role with more strategic scope, or a compensation review tied to specific funding milestones.
The worst approach is to promise equity is “coming” without a concrete timeline. Candidates who have been through this before know that “we’re working on an RSU plan” often means it’s six to twelve months away and may arrive at terms that don’t match what was implied during the offer conversation. If you can’t offer equity today, say so clearly and explain what you’re offering instead. Ambiguity at this stage costs more trust than honesty.
Equity as a Competitive Advantage
The companies that understand the equity landscape in space right now have a genuine advantage. They can close candidates that their competitors lose. They can attract people who would otherwise stay in comfortable roles at established companies. And they can build senior teams that are genuinely invested – financially and psychologically – in the company’s long-term success.
The irony is that offering equity well doesn’t cost more than offering it poorly. The number of shares or the percentage isn’t usually the issue. What matters is how it’s presented, how quickly the company can deliver it, and whether the candidate leaves the conversation understanding what they’re being offered.
The Takeaway
Equity is no longer a perk in the space sector. For mid-to-senior hires, it’s a core component of the offer that directly affects whether the company can close. The companies that treat it as an afterthought – or that can’t deliver it at the speed the market demands – will continue losing their preferred candidates to organizations that have figured this out.
The fix isn’t complicated. Get internal equity approval before the search begins. Present it transparently. And if you can’t offer it, have a clear alternative that demonstrates the same kind of long-term commitment. The candidates you’re trying to hire are making multi-year career decisions. Your offer needs to reflect that.