Skip to main content
CEOPayWatch

Updated April 2026 · SEC DEF 14A data

Coca-Cola vs Monster Beverage, CEO Pay Comparison

James Quincey, Coca-Cola's CEO, earns $4.0M more in reported total compensation than Hilton Schlosberg at Monster Beverage, based on the most recent SEC DEF 14A proxy filings. Coca-Cola earns a Pay-for-Performance Grade of C; Monster Beverage earns a B.

James Quincey at Coca-Cola ($12.0M) and Hilton Schlosberg at Monster Beverage ($8.0M) are close on total compensation. With pay close, the more interesting comparison is on performance: TSR ran -5.8% versus 20.1% over the three-year window.

CEO compensation comparisons require peer-group context. Compensation committees explicitly select peer groups for setting CEO pay; two companies may use different peer groups even when they appear in similar industries. The full per-company pages surface the disclosed peer-group context.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricCoca-ColaKOMonster BeverageMNST
CEOJames QuinceyHilton Schlosberg
IndustryBeveragesBeverages
Total Compensation$12.0M$8.0M
Base Salary$1.2M$800K
Stock Awards$6.0M$4.0M
Option Awards$1.4M$960K
Non-Equity Incentive$1.8M$1.2M
Pay-for-Performance GradeC (56/100)B (75/100)
CEO-Worker Pay Ratio200:1133:1
Median Worker Pay$60K$60K
Say-on-Pay Approval88.6%93.6%
3yr Total Shareholder Return-5.8%+20.1%
Revenue$46.5B$7.1B
Market Cap$270.0B$50.0B
Employees79,0005,700

Reading the Comparison

James Quincey (Coca-Cola) earns $4.0M more than Hilton Schlosberg (Monster Beverage) — a meaningful gap reflecting both pay-package design and the size of the most recent equity grant under FASB ASC 718 grant-date fair value accounting.

On Pay-for-Performance Grade, Monster Beverage edges Coca-Cola 75/100 (B) to 56/100 (C). The 19-point gap usually reflects one or two factors moving in opposite directions — typically say-on-pay vote share or relative TSR.

CEO-to-worker pay ratios diverge meaningfully: 200:1 at Coca-Cola versus 133:1 at Monster Beverage. The gap usually reflects workforce composition — Coca-Cola likely has a larger share of part-time or hourly employees pushing down median worker pay under the SEC Item 402(u) calculation. Monster Beverage's pay package received 93.6% shareholder approval, ahead of Coca-Cola's 88.6%. Both votes are above the 70% scrutiny threshold but the 5.0-point gap indicates somewhat different shareholder views on pay structure.

How These Numbers Are Sourced

Every metric in the comparison table comes from a primary public source. Total compensation, salary, stock awards, option awards, and non-equity incentive figures come from the Summary Compensation Table of each company's most recent DEF 14A — the table the SEC requires every U.S. public company to file annually under Regulation S-K Item 402. CEO-to-worker pay ratio comes from the Item 402(u) disclosure required since 2018. Say-on-pay vote share comes from the 8-K filed within four business days of each annual meeting. 3-year total shareholder return is computed from split-adjusted, dividend-reinvested price data over the most recent 36 months.

The Pay-for-Performance Grade is the four-factor composite documented at methodology: relative TSR (35%), revenue versus compensation growth (25%), say-on-pay vote (25%), and pay ratio versus peers (15%). Authoritative governance frameworks come from Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis. Underlying SEC filings for both Coca-Cola and Monster Beverage are available on the EDGAR system.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much do the CEOs of Coca-Cola and Monster Beverage earn?

James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola, earned $12.0M in reported total compensation in the most recently disclosed fiscal year. Hilton Schlosberg at Monster Beverage earned $8.0M. Both figures come from the Summary Compensation Table inside each company's most recent DEF 14A proxy statement.

Which company has better Pay-for-Performance alignment?

On Pay-for-Performance Grade, Monster Beverage edges Coca-Cola 75/100 (B) to 56/100 (C). The 19-point gap usually reflects one or two factors moving in opposite directions — typically say-on-pay vote share or relative TSR. The grade is computed from a four-factor composite: 3-year relative TSR (35%), revenue versus compensation growth (25%), say-on-pay vote (25%), and CEO-to-worker pay ratio versus peers (15%).

How do CEO-to-worker pay ratios compare?

Coca-Cola reports a CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio of 200:1 on its most recent Item 402(u) disclosure; Monster Beverage reports 133:1. CEO-to-worker pay ratios diverge meaningfully: 200:1 at Coca-Cola versus 133:1 at Monster Beverage. The gap usually reflects workforce composition — Coca-Cola likely has a larger share of part-time or hourly employees pushing down median worker pay under the SEC Item 402(u) calculation.

Did shareholders approve each pay package?

Monster Beverage's pay package received 93.6% shareholder approval, ahead of Coca-Cola's 88.6%. Both votes are above the 70% scrutiny threshold but the 5.0-point gap indicates somewhat different shareholder views on pay structure. Say-on-pay is an advisory vote required by Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Act and conducted at each annual shareholder meeting.

Where does this comparison data come from?

Every figure on this page is sourced from public SEC filings: the DEF 14A proxy statement for compensation under Regulation S-K Item 402, the same proxy's Item 402(u) disclosure for pay ratio, the 8-K filed within four business days of each annual meeting for say-on-pay vote share, and the 10-K for revenue, market cap, and employee count. All filings are available on the SEC EDGAR system at https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.

Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, DEF 14A and 8-K filings via EDGAR. Public domain.

Last updated 2026-04-06 · comparing Coca-Cola (KO) and Monster Beverage (MNST).