Compare executive compensation

Use this workflow to prepare a board-governance or pay-for-performance review. It compares reported compensation rows; it does not determine whether pay is appropriate, comparable across companies, or aligned with performance. Keep both proxy periods and filing provenance behind every material statement.

Prerequisites

An SEC API key, curl, and jq, or Node.js 18+.
A ticker or CIK. This example uses AAPL.

export SECAPI_API_KEY="your_api_key"

1. Retrieve the latest disclosed compensation table

curl --get --fail-with-body -H "x-api-key: $SECAPI_API_KEY" \
  --data-urlencode "ticker=AAPL" --data-urlencode "limit=25" --data-urlencode "view=agent" \
  "https://api.secapi.ai/v1/compensation" \
  | jq '{data, requestId, traceparent}'

The result is normalized executive rows derived from the latest DEF 14A. Each record can include executive name, role, compensation components, year, accession number, and provenance. Null is a missing/not-applicable component, not zero.

2. Compare the latest two disclosures

curl --fail-with-body -X POST -H "x-api-key: $SECAPI_API_KEY" \
  -H "content-type: application/json" --data '{"ticker":"AAPL","limit":25}' \
  "https://api.secapi.ai/v1/compensation/compare" \
  | jq '{companyName, currentFilingDate, previousFilingDate, rows, provenance, requestId, traceparent}'

The expected result identifies the two filing dates and emits one row per executive with status, current/previous total compensation, delta, and disclosed years. Preserve the comparison provenance and source filings before writing commentary.

3. Generate a reviewer-ready table

Save this as compare-compensation.mjs:

const response = await fetch("https://api.secapi.ai/v1/compensation/compare", {
  method: "POST", headers: { "x-api-key": process.env.SECAPI_API_KEY ?? "", "content-type": "application/json" },
  body: JSON.stringify({ ticker: "AAPL", limit: 25 }),
});
if (!response.ok) throw new Error(`SEC API ${response.status}: ${await response.text()}`);
const comparison = await response.json();
console.table((comparison.rows ?? []).map((row) => ({ executive: row.executiveName, status: row.status,
  currentYear: row.currentYear, previousYear: row.previousYear, currentTotalUsd: row.currentTotalUsd,
  previousTotalUsd: row.previousTotalUsd, deltaTotalUsd: row.deltaTotalUsd })));
console.log(JSON.stringify({ currentFilingDate: comparison.currentFilingDate,
  previousFilingDate: comparison.previousFilingDate, provenance: comparison.provenance,
  requestId: comparison.requestId, traceparent: comparison.traceparent }, null, 2));

Run node compare-compensation.mjs. The expected output is a console table of returned comparison rows followed by the two filing dates, provenance, and request identifiers; amounts and row count vary by issuer and filing availability.

Source and provenance

The normalized rows and comparison come from the two DEF 14A disclosures selected by the API. Keep each returned accession, filing date, source URL or provenance object, executive identity, and requestId. The proxy statement is the source for any explanation of a pay component or a changed named-executive roster.

Use the same job through MCP

In a connected MCP client, use tools.search to locate the live executive-compensation capability and tools.describe before calling it. Ask the client to keep the typed comparison result, both filing periods, provenance, requestId, and traceparent with its written summary. Tool names and arguments can change, so the live MCP contract is the source of truth.

Limits and failure modes

A comparison requires two available disclosures. Do not treat an unavailable comparison as no pay change.
added or removed often reflects a changed named-executive roster, not a compensation event.
A total-compensation delta can be driven by grant-date equity valuation and reporting-period changes; inspect the proxy table and compensation discussion.
Do not coerce null salary, bonus, or awards to zero when calculating a mix.

Prepare for repeated runs

Key snapshots by filing accession and executive identity, retain all component fields and source provenance, and have governance specialists review material commentary. Apply peer comparisons only after explicitly defining period, peer group, role, and valuation treatment.

Next action

Use the source proxy filings to add a reviewer-approved explanation for changed rows, then join financial performance metrics only with clearly labeled methodology.

Find Risk Factors with Semantic Search Analyze Insider Transactions

​Prerequisites

​1. Retrieve the latest disclosed compensation table

​2. Compare the latest two disclosures

​3. Generate a reviewer-ready table

​Source and provenance

​Use the same job through MCP

​Limits and failure modes

​Prepare for repeated runs

​Next action