NQDC Survey Benchmarks for 2026: Participation, Deferrals and Plan Design Compared

The major NQDC surveys report participation anywhere from about 70% of eligible executives to under 25% at most plans, and both findings can be accurate at once. PSCA's 2025 survey reports an aggregate rate pooled across every eligible executive in its sample, while the 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey reports how many plans fall into each participation band, so the two numbers measure different things and should never be averaged together.

This page puts the main 2024 to 2026 NQDC surveys side by side, explains what each one measures, and shows how to benchmark your plan without comparing apples to oranges. It covers private-employer, account-balance top-hat plans governed by Section 409A. If you need a refresher on the basics, see what an NQDC plan is.

The NQDC surveys at a glance

Before comparing any number, check who was asked, how many responded and who paid for the research. Several of these surveys come from companies that sell NQDC products or services.

Participation rates: why the headline numbers disagree

PSCA's 2025 NQDC survey found that 69.8% of eligible executives participated in 2025, up from 61.2% in 2024 and the highest rate PSCA has recorded. That figure is an aggregate rate across all eligible executives at the responding organizations. Large plans with many eligible people carry more weight in it than small plans do. It is not the participation rate at a typical plan.

The 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey asked a different question. It found that 58% of plan sponsors reported participation below 25%, and nearly 40% reported 10% or less. Here each plan counts once, whatever its size. The figure describes how plans are spread across participation bands, not an average.

A third data point comes from Morgan Stanley at Work, a plan services provider. In research reported by PLANADVISER in June 2026, employers said 44% of their eligible employees were not participating.

These figures use different samples, weighting and questions. You cannot derive a median from PSCA's figure or an average from Newport's bands. The reasonable reading is narrower: across large pooled populations, most eligible executives participate, yet many individual plans struggle to get even a quarter of their eligible group to defer.

Which participation number to compare yourself to

• If you calculate one rate for your plan (participants divided by eligible employees), PSCA's aggregate figure is the closer reference, with the caveat that it pools many organizations.
• If you want to know whether your plan is unusual, place it in a band (under 10%, under 25% and so on) and compare it with the Newport/PLANSPONSOR distribution.

PSCA's prior-year survey also reportedly found that about 6.5% of all employees are eligible on average. That figure was reported by NAPA in February 2025; treat it as directional, so benchmark participation among eligible employees, not your whole workforce.

Deferral amounts, employer contributions and vesting

In PSCA's 2025 survey, participants deferred an average of 10% of base salary and 23% of bonus pay. Participants deferred a much larger share of bonus than of salary, so track the two separately.

Employer contribution figures vary more by source than any other benchmark:

• PSCA's 2024 survey reportedly found that 80% of employers contribute to their NQDC plan and that half of those make a restoration match (again via NAPA's coverage).
• Principal's 2025 report, based on 83 sponsors and described by Principal as directional, found that 43% of sponsors offer employer contributions.

The gap is large, the samples are very different, and the questions may define "contribution" differently. Do not average them. If you are weighing an employer credit, look at how it would be designed and vested, as covered in the deferred compensation employer match guide.

On vesting, the 2024 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey found that company contributions most often vested 100% after three years or after five years, each used by 36% of plans.

Funding, investments and distributions

Informal funding. In PSCA's 2025 survey, two-thirds of respondents set assets aside to meet future NQDC obligations, and 90.6% of those use a rabbi trust. Separately, the 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey found that almost 50% of sponsors use corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) as their primary informal financing vehicle, up from about 40% in 2024. These answer different questions in different surveys: one asks where set-aside assets are held, the other what asset finances the liability. Participants remain unsecured creditors either way, as explained in NQDC risks and rabbi trusts.

Investment menus. PSCA found that almost 40% of plans offered the same investment options as the employer's qualified DC plan, and about one-third offered a similar lineup.

Distribution options. Per PSCA, 72.9% of employers allow distributions at separation from service and 64.3% permit distributions on a specified date chosen by the participant. The 2024 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey found that 95% of plans allowed installments, 96% allowed single lump sums and 23% offered a partial lump sum with installments. The trade-offs for participants are covered in lump sum vs. installments.

Administration and plan types. The same 2024 survey found that 94% of sponsors outsource NQDC administration and that 36% of responding companies offered a SERP to senior management, down from 48% in 2022. For context on scale among the largest companies, GAO found that as of 2017 more than 400 S&P 500 companies offered executive retirement plans to almost 2,300 of their top executives, totaling about $13 billion in accumulated benefit promises.

Education and understanding: the gap every survey points to

This is where the surveys agree most, even though each asks the question differently.

• Education is common, but rarely aimed at participation. PSCA's 2025 survey found that more than 75% of organizations provide NQDC-specific education. Of those, 65.7% aim to increase awareness of the plan and only 16.8% aim to increase participation.
• Sponsors feel better about communication than participants do. In the 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey, 82% of sponsors were satisfied with their NQDC communication and education, yet 70% of participants said they still did not understand the plan, and 58% of sponsors were looking to change their approach. In the 2024 edition, participant understanding ranked last of seven satisfaction categories, and only 20% of sponsors were very satisfied with their materials.
• Lack of understanding is the top barrier. The 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey found the most-cited barriers were lack of understanding (46%) and irrevocable election rules (27%). Morgan Stanley at Work's research found competing financial priorities (44%), lack of familiarity (35%) and the risk of deferrals being locked in for the year (34%). In that same research, 96% of employers said they could do a better job educating employees and 96% cited better personalized guidance as a potential solution.
• Even decision makers find benefits hard. In NFP's 2025 report, only 29% of respondents said they fully understand their benefits offering.
• Sponsors expect tools to help. The 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey found that 84% of sponsors see AI improving deferral decision modeling, and in 2024, 33% planned to provide better online tools.

PSCA also found that 78.8% of employers were satisfied with how their plan is structured, and employers reported that 80.5% of participants were satisfied. Satisfaction with a plan and understanding of a personal election are different measures.

The lever these surveys flag repeatedly, and the one you control, is whether each eligible executive understands what deferring would do in their own situation. Generic education explains the plan. A personal model answers "what does this mean for me?" without your team giving advice or seeing anyone's finances. That is the gap a private calculator for your participants is built for; see how a license works for your plan and the broader guide to benefits decision support tools.

How to benchmark your own NQDC plan

Use the same definitions every year, and compare each metric with the survey that measures it the same way.

Segment by eligibility tier, track newly eligible employees separately (their 30-day election window runs outside open enrollment), and revisit the benchmarks each year. These surveys are updated annually, and so is this page.

Your plan document governs the details, and plan design changes should go through counsel and your recordkeeper or advisers. For tactics that move the numbers, see how to increase NQDC plan participation.

Frequently asked questions

What is a normal NQDC participation rate?

It depends on how you measure it. PSCA's 2025 survey found an aggregate rate of 69.8% across all eligible executives in its sample, while the 2026 Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey found that 58% of plans had participation below 25%. Compare your plan-level rate with PSCA's figure, and your band with Newport's distribution, rather than treating either as a single norm.

Why do the PSCA and PLANSPONSOR NQDC surveys disagree?

They measure different things. PSCA reports a rate pooled across eligible executives, so large plans weigh heavily, while Newport/PLANSPONSOR reports the share of plans in each participation band, with every plan counted once. The samples and sponsors also differ, so the figures should not be combined.

How much do NQDC participants typically defer?

In PSCA's 2025 survey, participants deferred an average of 10% of base salary and 23% of bonus pay. Your plan's averages will depend on who is eligible, your deferral limits and whether you offer employer credits.

How many companies contribute to their NQDC plan?

Estimates vary widely by survey. PSCA's 2024 survey reportedly found that 80% of employers contribute, half of them through a restoration match, while Principal's smaller 2025 survey of 83 sponsors found 43%. Different samples and definitions explain much of the gap.

Who publishes the main NQDC surveys?

The PSCA survey is sponsored by several providers, and the Newport/PLANSPONSOR survey is run with Newport (Ascensus), an NQDC provider. Principal, NFP and Morgan Stanley at Work publish their own research. Check the sample size, the sponsor and the definition behind each figure before you cite it.