Case Study: A 6-point capital gap on identical performance
Head-to-head simulation of a real incentive plan: Linear Scale vs. Anavai Smart Scale across Revenue, Adj. EBITDA, and Org Health KPIs — same thresholds, targets, and maxima, zero anchor changes.
The setup
A head-to-head simulation, run on a real incentive plan structure: the same thresholds, targets, and maxima across Revenue, Adjusted EBITDA, and Org Health KPIs, with zero anchor changes between the two scenarios. The only variable was the payout curve shape itself — a standard Linear Scale versus Anavai’s Smart Scale (sigmoid) curve.
See the Snapshot
The finding
On identical performance across every KPI, the two curve shapes produced a 6-point gap in total payout as a percentage of target — with Smart Scale reallocating spend away from near-miss performance and toward genuine over-achievement, without increasing total plan cost.
Modeled against real incentive pool sizes, that gap translates to projected savings of $1.2M on a $20M pool, $3.0M on a $50M pool, and $6.0M on a $100M pool — capital that funds a stronger payout for actual top performers instead of subsidizing performance just short of target.
Get the full case study
Leave your email and we’ll send the full write-up, including the underlying plan structure and methodology.
Questions instead? Write to connect@anavaihq.com.
Disclaimer & Source Notes: This case study is an independent, retrospective analytical simulation conducted by Anavai Technologies using solely publicly available data from the concerned organization’s Proxy Statement filed with the US SEC. This analysis is provided for educational and thought-leadership purposes. Anavai Technologies is not affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by, or partnered with the concerned organization.