The Highest Paid CEOs of 2023

The chiefs of America’s biggest companies reached new pay heights in 2023 as stock awards swelled the value of compensation packages.

Half of the executives in a Wall Street Journal analysis made at least $15.7 million, a record for median CEO pay in the annual survey, with several making more than $50 million . Median pay for the same companies a year earlier was about $14.5 million .

Most of the executives received year-over-year raises of at least 9%—one in four got 25% or more—and most companies recorded annual shareholder returns of at least 13%, the Journal found in an analysis of data on more than 400 companies from MyLogIQ , a provider of public-company data and analysis. (See the full ranking below.)

Eight tech executives ranked among the 25 top earners, as did five each heading financial companies and media or entertainment companies.

Hock Tan , the highest-paid CEO in the Journal’s analysis at $162 million, has to stay on the job for five years and Broadcom ’s share price must reach certain targets after October 2025 to get the full value of most of his pay. Broadcom said the company has outperformed competitors under Tan, its CEO since 2006, and he won’t get more equity or cash bonuses for five years.

Pay for Nikesh Arora at Palo Alto Networks totalled $151 million, mostly in equity awards that included shares granted over three years.

Blackstone , where Steven Schwarzman made $120 million, said the company’s 83% total return surpassed U.S. asset managers last year and described its pay structure as aligning executive incentives with those of investors.

Christopher Winfrey of Charter Communications , the cable operator, received total pay valued at $89.1 million, largely in options and stock vesting over five years, and much of it only if the company’s shares rise 28% to 152% from when the grants were made.

A $30 million one-time retention and leadership award that vests over five years helped boost total pay for Fair Isaac ’s Will Lansing to $66 million. The company said its shareholder returns ranked among the top 1% of companies in the S&P 500 over the past decade.

Stock gains

Equity awards continued to make up the bulk of most executives’ pay, much of it structured to deliver more stock or options if the company meets financial or share-price performance over several years. That means the pay can lose considerable value if the company’s share price falls or operating targets are missed—or soar in value amid market and operating success.

Restricted stock awarded in early March last year to Jensen Huang , CEO of graphics-chip maker Nvidia , quadrupled in value through late January, to $107.5 million. Huang’s pay, originally reported at $34.2 million , included $26.7 million of restricted stock as valued at grant.

Under the terms of the award, Huang could receive 50% to 100% more shares than originally targeted if the company meets performance criteria, according to Nvidia’s proxy.

Nvidia’s share price tripled during the year.

Brian Niccol , CEO of restaurateur Chipotle Mexican Grill , received stock and options valued at $15.5 million when they were granted in February 2023 as part of a $22.5 million pay package. By the end of the year, that equity had more than tripled in value, to $52.2 million, the company said. Chipotle shares returned about 65% during 2023, and 18% a year over three years.

A Chipotle spokeswoman said the growth in Niccol’s equity-award value reflects the company’s strong share-price performance during the year. The company said the value Niccol ultimately realises depends on continued financial, operating and stock-market performance by the company.

Intel CEO Patrick Gelsinger ’s equity awards last year also more than tripled in value by year-end, to $39.3 million. The company said in its securities filings that austerity measures last year reduced Gelsinger’s salary by about 15% to $1.1 million, which in turn reduced his cash bonus target by about 15%, to $2.9 million.

Overall, median cash pay for CEOs, including salary and annual bonuses, remained flat at about $3.8 million.

Top performers

Pay for CEOs running the best- and worst-performing companies didn’t vary dramatically. Median total pay was $14.6 million for the 20% of CEOs whose companies recorded the worst returns compared with other companies in the same sector, and $15.7 million for CEOs at the best-performing companies.

Chip and computer hardware makers accounted for six of the 25 best-performing companies—including Nvidia, the top performer—while four were in the travel or transportation industries. Several of the top performers bounced back from one or more years of poor returns, often tied to the pandemic.

Royal Caribbean Group reported paying Jason Liberty $17.2 million and recorded a total return of 162% last year, after posting minus 36% in 2022 and minus 43% in 2020, when the cruise industry was battered by illness and travel bans. (The company posted a 3% return in 2021.) Ride-sharing giant Uber Technologies recorded a 149% return after posting returns of minus 41% in 2022 and minus 18% in 2021.

Chip maker Advanced Micro Devices , ranked seventh by one-year performance, was headed by Lisa Su , the second-highest-paid woman in the analysis, at just over $30 million, including nearly $28 million in restricted stock and options. The highest-paid woman, at $31.55 million, was Julie Sweet of consultant Accenture , which posted a one-year total return of about 14%.

Thirty-one women ran S&P 500 companies for the full year of 2023, up from around two dozen at the beginning of the decade. None ranked among the top 25 by pay. One other woman ran one of the 25 best performers: Jayshree Ullal at networking company Arista Networks , which posted a 94% return. Ullal’s pay totalled $15.56 million.

Bottom of the pack

Among the 25 worst-performing companies in the Journal analysis, nearly a third operated in the healthcare sector, including six pharmaceutical or biotech companies. They were joined by four utilities.

Pfizer said it didn’t pay bonuses to top executives last year after weak demand for Covid-related products led the company to miss financial targets. The $17.5 million equity award that made up most of CEO Albert Bourla ’s total pay last year is meant to recognize his leadership and give him an incentive to focus on long-term strategy, the company said.

Poor performance can slash the value of CEO equity awards. Covid-vaccine maker Moderna reported total pay of $17.1 million for CEO Stéphane Bancel last year, including $12.5 million in stock and option awards.

The value of those awards fell 42% to $7.3 million at year-end, the company’s proxy shows, as Moderna’s stock price tumbled about the same amount for the year. In addition, equity awards made to Bancel in prior years fell in value by about $167 million during 2023.

Those losses offset a net $945 million in new equity awards and increases in value reported for Bancel during the prior three years.

Moderna declined to comment.

Methodology

The Wall Street Journal used data from corporate proxy statements filed through May 16 by companies in the S&P 500 index with fiscal years ended after June 30, 2023. The data was collected by MyLogIQ, a provider of public-company data and analysis.

Aggregate pay and shareholder-return figures exclude companies that changed CEOs or fiscal-year-end dates during the year.

Pay reflects the value of equity awards at grant, as reported by companies. Total returns reflect stock-price change and dividends, in most cases calculated from the month end closest to the company’s fiscal-year end.

Sources: MyLogIQ (compensation); Institutional Shareholder Services, FactSet (shareholder return); Standard & Poor’s (industry groups); company filings (pay for select companies)

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

The Highest Paid CEOs of 2023

Stock gains

Top performers

Bottom of the pack

Methodology

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.