Employee Comp Review | Renatus

PLANNING EMPLOYEE COMP REVIEW

Prepared for Demo · 05 Jul 2026

Straits Data — Compensation Review Q3 2026

Straits Data's comp set reflects a funding stage the business has already left. The raises happened; the comp reset did not. The result is a twelve-role group where six cases sit materially below market — not because of deliberate strategy, but because the Series A created a step-change in the Singapore tech talent market that was never applied to existing packages. The most acute cases are also the most consequential: the two early-joining engineers who built the technical foundation, the Staff Engineer who owns the hardest technical problems, and the data scientist whose forecasting models are core product infrastructure. These four people are the hardest to replace and the most exposed to a competing offer.

The refresh decision the comp committee faces is not whether to spend, but how much and in what sequence. Minimum remediation addresses the five acute cases — the four above plus the Head of Growth's equity gap — and stops the most likely near-term departures. Market parity moves the full cohort to P50 and eliminates every structural underpay case, including the three post-Series-A SWEs and the PMs whose risk is latent today but will activate within 12 months if left unaddressed. The gap between the two levels is modest relative to the cost of a single departure at Staff Engineer or Senior Data Scientist level. More importantly, Straits Data is 12–18 months from a Series B process — the moment when incoming investors and new hires scrutinise the comp set most closely. A clean comp story at that stage is a material advantage; an inherited underpay pattern is a distraction the business does not need.

The review

Straits Data is a Singapore-based B2B SaaS company providing supply-chain analytics to Southeast Asian logistics operators. The business raised US$8m in a Series A last year and currently employs 45 staff. The review covers twelve roles across engineering, product, and go-to-market: five Senior Software Engineers, one Staff Engineer, one Head of Engineering, two Product Managers, two Data Scientists, and a Head of Growth. Founders are excluded. The review is internal, commissioned by the CEO.

Its purpose is to assess where the current comp set sits relative to the Singapore Series A SaaS market, identify off-band cases, and cost the options for a refresh. All figures are Singapore dollars, base salary only. Equity context is material but excluded from current comp: early joiners hold seed-round grants that have never been refreshed and carry no practical retention value today. Fresh equity grants are identified as part of the recommended fix — they do not appear in the current-compensation numbers. The audience is the CEO and, by implication, the board when a refresh decision is brought forward.

Each role vs market

Current total comp

Market P50 band (low–high)

Senior Software Engineer (early joiners × 2)

SGD 118k base · 18% below mid

Senior Software Engineer (post-Series-A hires × 3)

SGD 122k base · 15% below mid

Staff Engineer (Marcus)

SGD 165k base · 18% below mid

Head of Engineering

SGD 240k base · 6% below mid

Product Manager × 2

SGD 130k base · 5% below mid

Data Scientist × 2 (standard title)

SGD 118k base · 4% above mid

Data Scientist — Aisha (operating at Senior/Lead level)

SGD 118k base · 23% below mid · extrapolated basis

Head of Growth

SGD 175k base / SGD 222k actual cash (FY last year, ~90% attainment) · 1% below mid · extrapolated basis

Data Scientist — Aisha (operating at Senior/Lead level): extrapolated — Band sourced against a Senior Data Scientist benchmark (Levels.fyi Mar 2026 median SGD 167k, Vertical Institute 2026 senior median SGD 166k) and applied to Aisha based on CEO's description of her operating scope — her formal title is 'Data Scientist', so this band is applied by function, not title. The underlying sources name senior-level roles directly; the extrapolation is in the seniority-to-title mapping.. Weigh this position with proportional caution. Head of Growth: extrapolated — No direct Singapore Series A Head of Growth base band found. Band extrapolated by triangulating Head of Marketing and VP Sales Singapore data (Robert Walters SG 2025, Glassdoor SG) and applying a Series A stage adjustment — no source directly names 'Head of Growth' at this exact stage and market.. Weigh this position with proportional caution.

Off-band cases — and why

Senior Software Engineer — early joiners × 2 — Below

Legacy pre-scale anchor Both early joiners were hired before Series A at below-market rates typical of seed-stage hiring. The raise created a market step-change that was never applied to their base. They are now the longest-tenured members of the cohort, the lowest-paid, and the most exposed — a direct inversion of what retention logic would require. SGD 118k sits outside the bottom of the NodeFlair P50 band (SGD 132k–156k). Seed equity grants have never been refreshed and carry no practical retention value. One of the two is showing behavioural signals consistent with active interviewing. The original below-market base was implicitly justified by equity upside that no longer exists.

Senior Software Engineer — post-Series-A hires × 3 — Below

Uncorrected inflation drift These three were hired after the raise but still below the P50 floor — most likely benchmarked against a slightly stale read or negotiated conservatively in the immediate post-raise period before market rates fully repriced. The gap is smaller than the early joiners but the direction is the same, and it will widen if the band continues to move. SGD 122k sits below the NodeFlair P50 floor of SGD 132k. No equity offset. No behavioural signals reported, but structural underpay creates latent risk that activates when the market comes to them.

Staff Engineer — Marcus — Below

Correction required Staff Engineer is a scarce designation — the title signals principal-level technical ownership, and the market prices it accordingly. SGD 165k against a triangulated base band of SGD 180k–220k represents a gap that is large enough in absolute terms to be corrected by a single competing offer. No equity offset exists, no refresh has been made, and the role is not easily backfilled. SGD 165k sits below the bottom of the triangulated P50 base band (SGD 180k–220k), sourced from Levels.fyi Singapore senior-IC data (Mar 2026), LinkedIn Pulse 2026, and lemon.io global senior-engineer rate data scaled to Singapore. Staff Engineer-level talent is thin in Singapore's Series A market — replacement is slower and more expensive than for senior IC roles.

Product Manager × 2 — Bottom

Uncorrected inflation drift SGD 130k sits at the lower portion of the user-supplied band (SGD 125k–150k). Not a structural underpay requiring urgent correction, but also not a position that offers much buffer. A competing offer pitched at the midpoint of this band would be difficult to match without a structural adjustment, and PM roles in Singapore SaaS are actively recruited. SGD 130k is above the floor of the band but meaningfully below mid. No equity offset. No acute signals reported, but the buffer is thin. Gap to mid: 5% below mid.

Data Scientist — Aisha — Below

Correction required Aisha is being paid at a generic Data Scientist rate for senior/lead output. She built and owns the forecasting models solo — a scope that the market prices materially higher than her current SGD 118k. The mismatch between title, pay, and contribution is the kind of gap that becomes visible to candidates when they talk to recruiters, and when it does, the correction required to retain her is larger than if it had been made proactively. SGD 118k sits below the bottom of the relevant senior/lead band (SGD 140k–168k), sourced from Levels.fyi Mar 2026 median (SGD 167k) and Vertical Institute 2026 senior median (SGD 166k). The standard Data Scientist band (SGD 108k–120k) shows her at the top — but that is the wrong benchmark for what she actually does.

Head of Growth — Mid

Strategic underpay (equity upside) On base and OTE, the Head of Growth is cash-competitive — SGD 175k base sits near the midpoint of the extrapolated base band, and actual cash earned last year sits inside the P50 OTE range. The classification as strategic underpay reflects the equity gap, not the cash position. A GTM leader hitting near-target with no live equity is a profile that competing offers will target specifically — the structural risk is not the salary, it is the absence of any ownership stake in the business she is helping to build. SGD 175k base against extrapolated band of SGD 155k–200k. SGD 222k actual cash against extrapolated OTE range of SGD 210k–280k. No live equity. Cap at 150% of target exists but does not substitute for equity participation at this stage. Gap to mid: 1% below mid. Basis: extrapolated — No direct Singapore Series A Head of Growth base band found. Band extrapolated by triangulating Head of Marketing and VP Sales Singapore data (Robert Walters SG 2025, Glassdoor SG) and applying a Series A stage adjustment — no source directly names 'Head of Growth' at this exact stage and market.. Weigh this classification with proportional caution.

Where retention risk concentrates

Biggest single risk:

Marcus — a Staff Engineer gap this size, with no equity offset and a scarce title in a thin Singapore market, is the case most likely to result in a departure that materially slows the engineering roadmap. The early-joiner SWE with behavioural signals is the most time-sensitive, but Marcus is the highest-consequence single loss.

Senior Software Engineer — early joiner (behavioural signals): High risk

Longest-tenured, lowest-paid of the cohort at SGD 118k, holding dead seed equity, and showing the behavioural pattern consistent with active interviewing. The tenure/pay inversion — where the person who took the most risk on the company is now the worst-compensated relative to market — is a direct catalyst for departure. This is the most time-sensitive case in the review. Replacement cost: Replacement cost for a Senior Software Engineer in Singapore SaaS is estimated at 30–50% of annual salary in recruitment fees plus 2–3 months of lost productivity during onboarding — roughly SGD 55k–90k all-in per head, based on Singapore tech recruitment market data checked during this conversation. For an early joiner with institutional knowledge, the productivity loss is likely at the higher end of that range..

Senior Software Engineer — early joiner (no signals, same structural position): High risk

Identical structural position to the first early joiner — same tenure, same pay, same dead equity. No behavioural signals yet, but the absence of signals today does not reduce the underlying exposure. Once the first early joiner acts, the second is likely to recalibrate. The two cases should be treated as a paired risk, not an isolated one. Replacement cost: Same basis as above — SGD 55k–90k all-in per head, based on Singapore tech recruitment market data checked during this conversation..

Staff Engineer — Marcus: High risk

Staff Engineer is a scarce designation in Singapore's Series A market, and Marcus sits materially below the bottom of the triangulated P50 base band with no equity offset. The gap is large enough to be closed by a single competing offer without the competing employer having to stretch. Staff Engineer-level talent takes significantly longer to replace than senior IC roles — the combination of scarcity, gap size, and no retention anchor makes this a high-risk case. Replacement cost: Replacement cost for a Staff Engineer in Singapore is materially higher than for a Senior SWE — recruitment fees for principal-level IC roles typically run 20–25% of first-year salary through specialist tech recruiters, plus 3–4 months of productivity loss during search and onboarding. All-in replacement cost estimated at SGD 90k–130k, based on Singapore tech leadership recruitment market data checked during this conversation..

Data Scientist — Aisha: High risk

Aisha is being paid at a generic Data Scientist rate for senior/lead output, with sole ownership of the forecasting models that are core product infrastructure. The gap between her title, her pay, and her market value is the kind of mismatch that becomes visible the moment a recruiter runs a search on her profile. Her work is not easily redistributed — if she leaves, the forecasting capability leaves with her until a replacement is hired and fully onboarded. Replacement cost: A Senior/Lead Data Scientist in Singapore SaaS commands SGD 140k–168k base; recruitment fees at 20–25% of first-year salary plus 3–4 months of onboarding loss puts all-in replacement cost at SGD 80k–120k, based on Levels. fyi and Vertical Institute data checked during this conversation. The harder cost is the model knowledge: Aisha's forecasting architecture is not documented in a way that transfers instantly..

Head of Growth: Medium risk

Cash compensation is defensible — base and actual earnings both sit inside the relevant market band. The risk is structural: a GTM leader hitting 90% of target with no live equity and only a vague verbal commitment on a refresh is a profile that competing offers will target specifically. The risk is not immediate — there are no signals reported — but it will crystallise if the equity gap is not formally closed in this review cycle. The 'we'll look after you' conversation from months ago is not a retention anchor. Replacement cost: Replacement cost for a Head of Growth at a Singapore Series A is estimated at SGD 80k–120k all-in — recruitment fees at specialist GTM leadership rates (typically 20–25% of OTE) plus ramp time. The harder cost is pipeline continuity: a GTM lead change mid-growth-cycle typically costs 1–2 quarters of momentum, based on standard Series A operational benchmarks..

Refresh costing — two levels

Level	Scope	Annual cost	What it addresses
Minimum remediation	The five acute retention cases only: both early-joiner Senior Software Engineers, Marcus (Staff Engineer), Aisha (operating at Senior/Lead Data Scientist scope), and the Head of Growth. This level closes the gaps that carry live departure risk. The three post-Series-A Senior SWEs, the two standard-band PMs, the Head of Engineering, and the second Data Scientist are held at current pay. Breakdown: 2× Senior Software Engineer — early joiners +SGD26k (SGD52k); 1× Staff Engineer — Marcus +SGD35k (SGD35k); 1× Data Scientist — Aisha (re-banded to Senior/Lead) +SGD36k (SGD36k); 1× Head of Growth (base adjustment) +SGD13k (SGD13k).	SGD136k	Closes the below-band gaps for the four highest-risk individuals plus the Head of Growth's base position. Stops the most likely departures. Does not address the structural underpay of the three post-Series-A SWEs, the PM buffer, or the second Data Scientist's general-title positioning — those remain latent risks that will resurface in the next hiring cycle.
Market parity	Full cohort to mid-band: all five Senior Software Engineers, Marcus, Head of Engineering (already at mid — no uplift required), both PMs, both Data Scientists (Aisha re-banded to Senior/Lead scope, second DS held at standard-title mid), and the Head of Growth base. This level moves everyone to P50 mid and eliminates structural underpay across the group. Breakdown: 2× Senior Software Engineer — early joiners +SGD26k (SGD52k); 3× Senior Software Engineer — post-Series-A hires +SGD22k (SGD66k); 1× Staff Engineer — Marcus +SGD35k (SGD35k); 1× Data Scientist — Aisha (re-banded to Senior/Lead) +SGD36k (SGD36k); 1× Data Scientist — second (standard title, held at band mid) +SGD0k (SGD0k); 2× Product Manager × 2 +SGD8k (SGD16k); 1× Head of Growth (base to mid) +SGD13k (SGD13k).	SGD218k	Moves the entire comp set to a defensible market position. Eliminates the tenure/pay inversion. Removes the latent risk in the post-Series-A SWE cohort before it activates. Gives the board a clean comp story at Series B — no inherited underpay carried into the next raise.

Cost gap: SGD82k. Minimum remediation is the floor, not the recommendation. It stops the most likely departures but leaves the post-Series-A SWEs and the PMs in a structurally weak position that will resurface within 12 months as the market continues to move. Market parity costs more but buys a clean comp set heading into Series B — which is the moment when talent scrutiny from incoming investors and new hires sharpens considerably. The delta between the two levels is the cost of not having this conversation again in 18 months. If the board is choosing between them, the question is not whether to spend the difference but when — and spending it now, while retention is still intact, is cheaper than spending it in a competitive hire or a retention crisis.

Recommendations

Action	Role / function	Rationale	Owner	By when
Adjust	Senior Software Engineer — early joiners × 2	Both early joiners sit below the bottom of the NodeFlair P50 band and are the longest-tenured, lowest-paid members of the cohort. One is showing behavioural signals consistent with active interviewing. The tenure/pay inversion — founders' earliest engineering hires earning less than later recruits — is both a retention emergency and a signal to the wider team about how loyalty is valued. Moving both to band floor minimum, or ideally to mid, is the single most time-sensitive action in this review. Pairing the base adjustment with a fresh equity grant converts a retention risk into a retention anchor.	CEO with board approval	Q3 2026 — before end of current quarter
Adjust	Staff Engineer — Marcus	SGD 165k sits below the bottom of a triangulated P50 base band for a Staff Engineer in Singapore SaaS. Staff Engineer is a scarce designation — the title signals principal-level technical ownership, and the market prices it accordingly. The gap is large enough to be closed by a single competing offer. No equity offset exists. Marcus should be moved to at least SGD 190k (band floor) in this cycle, with a path to mid (SGD 200k) at the next review. A meaningful equity refresh is essential alongside the base move — without it, the base adjustment alone may not hold.	CEO with board approval	Q3 2026
Re-band	Data Scientist — Aisha	Aisha's formal title is Data Scientist; her actual scope is Senior/Lead. She built and owns the forecasting models solo — infrastructure that is core to the product. Paying her at a generic Data Scientist rate for that output is a title/pay/contribution mismatch that will become visible to recruiters and visible to Aisha when it does. The correct action is a formal title change to Senior Data Scientist or Lead Data Scientist, a base adjustment to at least the floor of the senior/lead band (SGD 140k), and an equity refresh. The re-band also corrects an equity-of-treatment issue: it is not sustainable to have the person most responsible for a core product capability paid at the same rate as a standard-scope peer. Basis: extrapolated — Band sourced against a Senior Data Scientist benchmark (Levels.fyi Mar 2026 median SGD 167k, Vertical Institute 2026 senior median SGD 166k) and applied to Aisha based on CEO's description of her operating scope — her formal title is 'Data Scientist', so this band is applied by function, not title. The underlying sources name senior-level roles directly; the extrapolation is in the seniority-to-title mapping.. Weigh with proportional caution.	CEO with Head of Engineering	Q3 2026
Refresh equity	Head of Growth	Base and actual earnings are cash-competitive. The structural gap is the absence of any live equity. A GTM leader who hits 90% of target, has been with the business through Series A, and holds nothing but a vague verbal commitment is a profile that competing offers will target specifically — and the competing offer will likely lead with equity, not base. The 'we'll look after you' conversation needs to convert into a named grant with a vesting schedule before this review cycle closes. The base adjustment is secondary; the equity grant is the retention anchor. Basis: extrapolated — No direct Singapore Series A Head of Growth base band found. Band extrapolated by triangulating Head of Marketing and VP Sales Singapore data (Robert Walters SG 2025, Glassdoor SG) and applying a Series A stage adjustment — no source directly names 'Head of Growth' at this exact stage and market.. Weigh with proportional caution.	CEO with board approval	Q3 2026
Adjust	Senior Software Engineer — post-Series-A hires × 3	At SGD 122k against a band floor of SGD 132k, the three post-Series-A hires sit below band with no signals today. This is latent risk, not acute risk. Left unaddressed, it activates when the market comes to them — typically through a recruiter approach or when a peer's departure prompts a self-assessment. Moving these three to band floor (SGD 132k) at market parity closes the structural gap before it becomes a retention event. At minimum remediation, this can be deferred one cycle — but no longer than that.	CEO with Head of Engineering	Q4 2026 at latest — can follow the acute corrections
Adjust	Product Manager × 2	SGD 130k sits at the lower portion of the user-supplied band (SGD 125k–150k). Not a structural emergency, but the buffer is thin. PM roles in Singapore SaaS are actively recruited, and a competing offer pitched at the midpoint of this band would be difficult to match without a structural adjustment. Moving both PMs to SGD 138k (band mid) at market parity removes this as a latent risk heading into Series B.	CEO with Head of Product	Q4 2026, alongside post-Series-A SWE adjustments
Document policy	All roles — comp review cadence	The root cause of every off-band case in this review is the same: Straits Data hired lean at seed, raised a Series A, and did not reset comp. The band audit has now been done. The risk is repeating the same pattern into Series B. Establishing a formal annual comp review cadence — benchmarked against NodeFlair and at least one secondary source — means the next raise does not produce the same conversation. The policy should also set a rule that any new hire offer is benchmarked against the same bands used in the annual review, so new hires do not anchor below the cohort they are joining.	CEO with CFO	Q4 2026 — formalise before Series B preparation begins

What this Reveals

Material refresh required

Six of twelve roles sit below their relevant market band — four of them materially below, with no equity offset and no remediation in place since the Series A. The pattern is not isolated; it reflects a systematic failure to reset comp after the raise. The two most critical technical roles (Staff Engineer and Senior/Lead Data Scientist) are below band and irreplaceable on short notice. One early-joining Senior SWE is showing active departure signals. The Head of Growth holds no live equity despite hitting target. The business is at the point where the cost of inaction — in departures, recruitment fees, productivity loss, and Series B narrative — exceeds the cost of a full market-parity refresh.

Base adjustments for the two early-joining Senior SWEs must be processed before end of Q3 2026 — the behavioural signal on one of them makes this the most time-sensitive action in the review

Marcus's base must move to at minimum the band floor (SGD 180k) in Q3 2026, paired with a meaningful equity refresh — base alone may not hold at this gap size

Aisha must be formally re-banded to Senior/Lead Data Scientist with a base adjustment to at least SGD 140k in Q3 2026 — the title/pay/contribution mismatch is a retention and equity-of-treatment risk

The Head of Growth equity refresh must convert from a verbal indication to a named grant with a vesting schedule before the end of Q3 2026

Post-Series-A SWEs and PMs should be moved to band mid by Q4 2026 — latent risk that will activate within 12 months if not addressed

A formal annual comp review cadence benchmarked against NodeFlair and a secondary source should be established before Series B preparation begins

The one change that can’t wait

Move Marcus to at least SGD 180k base with an equity refresh in Q3 2026. A Staff Engineer gap this size, in a market this thin, with no equity offset, is the single case most likely to result in a departure that materially slows the engineering roadmap — and the one least recoverable on a short timeline.

About About this report

What this is. This Employee Comp Review was built through a guided conversation between Demo and Ren.

How it was built. All analysis reflects your own thinking — structured using established frameworks, sharpened, and presented clearly.

This report was produced by Ren, an AI advisor built by Renatus. It is based on information you provided during the conversation and established frameworks. It is intended to support — not replace — your own judgement. All conclusions should be reviewed before acting on them.

Renatus applies the underlying principles of established methods and credits their origin where relevant. Named frameworks, methods, and instruments are the property of their respective owners. Reference to them does not imply endorsement or affiliation.

Frameworks Guided Strategy Used

3 frameworks were used to structure your thinking:

Pay Band Variance Audit Maps each role against market bands and classifies the off-band cases — strategic underpay, legacy anchor, inflation drift or correction-required.

Retention Concentration Analysis Identifies the handful of off-band cases that actually drive retention risk — separating the noise from the cases that matter.

Two-Level Refresh Costing Costs the refresh at minimum-remediation and market-parity levels so the comp committee sees the trade-off, not a single number.

Back

Download

Pricing

Login