Global Security Leadership Analysis
2026 Global CISO
Leadership Report
Executive analysis of compensation, reporting structures, AI governance, and strategic priorities across 625+ security leaders.
2026 Global CISO Report
Introduction & Methodology
Introduction
Presented by Hitch Partners, the 2026 Global Organization Report analyzes the evolving landscape of security leadership. Now in its ninth annual edition, the report provides critical insight into compensation trends, reporting structures, and the expanding responsibilities of security executives in 2025.
This year's analysis examines both Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) and NextGen security leaders. While CISOs continue to shape security strategy and communicate risk at the executive level, NextGen security leaders who operate just below the CISO are playing an increasingly pivotal role in executing strategy, owning key security programs, and driving operational excellence.
As threats to infrastructure and applications intensify, demand for seasoned security leadership remains high. Both CISOs and NextGen security leaders are commanding competitive compensation as organizations prioritize security at the highest levels.
Hitch Partners specializes in executive search and sector advocacy, equipping security leaders with data-driven insights to navigate this dynamic field. We welcome your feedback and invite you to share topics you'd like us to explore in future reports.
Survey Respondents
Annual Edition
North American Coverage
Methodology
This report is based on survey responses from more than 625+ Information Security executives across North America (U.S. and Canada) and select international markets. Responses were collected between Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 and represent a broad cross-section of industries, company sizes, and organizational models providing a comprehensive view of how security leadership is evolving as we enter 2026.
Scope & Definitions
"CISO" Definition: Throughout this report, CISO refers to the most senior security leader accountable for an organization's information security strategy, program execution, and risk management. This encompasses multiple titles, including:
- •Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)
- •Chief Security Officer (CSO)
- •Head of Security / Head of Information Security
- •Vice President of Security / VP of Information Security
- •Senior Director of Security (when serving as top security role)
"NextGen" Definition: "NextGen" refers to the security leadership layer directly reporting to the CISO—typically the top 3-5 security leaders responsible for executing the security program across specialized domains. These roles represent the next generation of CISO talent and include titles such as:
- •Deputy CISO
- •Head of Security / Security Engineering
- •Vice President of Product Security / Application Security
- •Senior Director / Director of Security (domain-specific: Cloud, Identity, GRC, etc.)
NextGen leaders translate CISO strategy into operational execution, combining strategic alignment with hands-on program leadership. They typically manage teams of 5 to 50+ security professionals within their areas of specialization.
Geographic Segments
This report highlights the North American security leadership market, a space Hitch Partners has supported through security leadership searches for more than a decade. With respondents based in the U.S. and Canada, the dataset offers a robust regional view of compensation benchmarks, organizational structures, and evolving security priorities.
Expanding Global Coverage: Beginning in 2025, we expanded our data collection beyond North America to include European and broader international markets to establish baseline benchmarks and better understand regional differences in security leadership practices. While international respondents currently account for a significantly lower percentage of total responses, we are committed to increasing global representation in future editions.
Current International Representation:
- •European Union: Concentrated in Germany, France, and the Netherlands
- •United Kingdom: London, other major business centers
- •Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark
- •Middle East: UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel
- •Australia: Sydney and Melbourne metro areas
As the international dataset matures over the next 12–24 months, we will introduce deeper regional analysis, including market-specific compensation benchmarks, regulatory drivers (such as GDPR, NIS2, and DORA), and structural differences in security organizations. In this year's edition, international findings are presented alongside North American data where sample sizes support statistically meaningful comparisons. All international compensation figures have been converted to USD using exchange rates as of January 11, 2026, to ensure direct comparability.
Acknowledgment & Thanks
We extend our sincere thanks to the security leaders who contributed their time and insight to this report, and to the broader community who helped rally participation across North America and international markets. This benchmark exists because of your engagement and trust.
We are grateful to the many CISOs and security leaders we connected with throughout the year at CISO Sanctuary gatherings, speaking engagements, our annual Brewery Party, Black Hat, and other industry events around the world. These conversations continue to shape our perspective and strengthen this community.
We also want to recognize and thank the Hitch team for the care, rigor, and coordination behind this effort - from research and analysis to community outreach and execution.
We look forward to even deeper engagement in 2026 and remain committed to supporting and advocating for a security leadership community we truly admire and care about.
Executive Summary
Critical Inflection Points in Security Leadership
The 2026 Global CISO Report reveals fundamental shifts in compensation, reporting structures, and governance with implications for every security leader's strategic positioning.
Public Company vs Private Company Compensation Gap
CISO Report to CTO / Engineering
Have Optimized AI Governance
Private Company CISOs Without Liability Protection
CISOs Report Third Party Risk as #1 Priority
NextGen Compensation Growth Outpacing CISO
Based on responses from 625+ information security executives collected Q4 2025–Q1 2026, this analysis identifies the critical decisions facing security leadership in 2026.
Section 01
Compensation Analysis
Public companies maintain significant compensation advantages across all components, with equity driving the largest differentials.
Public vs. Private Company CISO Compensation
Total compensation breakdown reveals structural differences in how organizations value security leadership.
Key Finding
Public company CISOs earn $128K more in total compensation, with equity driving the largest differential.
$814K
Public Avg
$686K
Private Avg
Avg Public CISO Total Comp
Avg Private CISO Total Comp
Industry Compensation Leaders
Total compensation varies significantly by industry vertical.
* Industry category is self reported
Consumer Software & Internet leads at $928K total compensation, driven by the highest equity packages ($458K avg). Media/Entertainment ($882K) and Logistics/Transportation ($864K) follow closely. Professional Services trails at $407K with minimal equity, reflecting partnership compensation models.
Geographic Insights
Location Premiums Persist Despite Remote Work Expansion
Secondary markets show compressed arbitrage: Markets such as Austin, Denver, and Miami increasingly price near coastal compensation levels, indicating that geographic arbitrage advantages have narrowed as both companies and senior security talent have relocated to the same secondary hubs.
Employment Offer Bonus Trends
Signing bonus prevalence varies between public and private companies.
52%
offer signing bonuses
$184K
average bonus amount
29%
offer signing bonuses
$102K
average bonus amount
Public companies offer signing bonuses 79% more frequently and at 80% higher amounts than private counterparts, reflecting the need to offset equity cliff risk and accelerate candidate decisions.
Section 02
Reporting Structure Evolution
Security leadership has fundamentally realigned toward technical execution, with CTO and senior engineering leaders now representing the dominant reporting structure.
The CTO/Engineering Line Ascendancy
CTO and senior engineering leaders now represent 30-32% of CISO reporting relationships.
Private company CISOs show the strongest momentum toward CTO reporting with +5% year-over-year growth, signaling security's evolution from risk management to technical enablement.
YOY Growth in Private CISOs Reporting to CTO/Engineering
CEO Reporting at Companies <500 Employees
Public CISOs Presenting to Board Quarterly
CIO reporting remains significant at 22% (private) and 34% (public), with steady but slower growth of +2% and +4% respectively. The CIO line reflects traditional IT-centric security models, while the accelerating CTO trend suggests organizations increasingly view security as integral to product development and engineering velocity.
Company Size Dictates Access
Reporting to the CEO drops significantly as company size grows, while CIO reporting increases proportionally. Board reporting frequency also varies substantially between public and private companies.
Reporting by Company Size
CEO and CIO reporting follows a predictable correlation with organizational scale
CEO
-91% decline
CIO
+571% increase
CISO Reporting to Board of Directors
Reporting frequency by company type with year-over-year changes
63% of public vs 39% of private companies report quarterly — a 24 percentage point gap. Private companies show -19% YoY decline in board reporting overall.
63%
Public Quarterly
+4% YoY
39%
Private Quarterly
+3% YoY
9%
Public Does not report
-9% YoY
15%
Private Does not report
-19% YoY
Section 03
CISO Liability Protection
Security leaders face significant personal risk with inadequate executive and personal liability coverage across both public and private sectors.
Executive Liability Coverage
D&O and indemnification policy adoption by company structure.
CISO Liability Protection
Comparing D&O and indemnification policy coverage between private and public companies
Key finding: Private company CISOs are 85% more likely to have no executive liability protection compared to their public company peers.
Private CISOs unprotected
Public CISOs unprotected
Personal Liability Insurance
Individual coverage rates reveal a widespread protection gap.
Personal Liability Insurance
Individual coverage rates for security executives by company structure
lack personal liability insurance coverage, regardless of company structure
Has Coverage
~26% of CISOs
No Coverage
~74% of CISOs
Sector comparison: Personal liability coverage rates are nearly identical between public (26.6%) and private (25.3%) companies—a difference of only 1.3%.
Lack personal coverage
Difference between sectors
Section 04
Team Size Dynamics
Security team scaling follows a non-linear trajectory that peaks at upper mid-market scale before federation begins.
The Complexity Curve
Team size peaks at 5K-10K employees before declining due to federation.
5,000-10,000 Employees
Peak Complexity
Maximum centralization achieved. Largest security teams at 243 personnel. Complexity outpaces informal controls.
Key Insight: Security teams peak at 5K-10K employees (243 personnel) representing maximum centralization. Beyond 10K employees, teams contract 47% as organizations federate security responsibilities across platform teams and business units.
Peak Security Team Size at 5K-10K Employee Companies
Team Size Decline at 10K+ Employees Due to Federation
The “federation effect” becomes visible for organizations larger than 10,000 employees, where average team size contracts 47% to 129. Large enterprises distribute security responsibilities into other organizations including platform teams, IT functions, and enterprise risk (GRC). The CISO role transitions from large, self contained organization to governance, influence, and strategic oversight across federated security capabilities.
CISO Tenure by Company Size
Average tenure patterns reveal retention challenges at smaller organizations.
CISOs at sub-500 employee companies average just 28 months tenure (40% shorter than the 47-month average at mid-market firms). The role at this stage is often under-resourced, under-scoped, and positioned as a checkbox rather than a function.
Public Company Tenure
Private Company Tenure
Section 05
CISO Functional Responsibilities
Security leadership encompasses a diverse portfolio of direct responsibilities from universal operational functions to emerging AI governance revealing where accountability is concentrated and where critical gaps persist.
Direct Responsibility Landscape
Percentage of North American CISOs with direct oversight of each security function.
CISOs Own Incident Response
Average Functions Per CISO
CISO Responsible for IT
CISO Responsible for Product/Application Security
Section 06
AI Governance and Risk Management
Organizations face a critical gap between AI adoption velocity and security preparedness, with structural vulnerabilities across governance, technical capability, and executive protection.
AI Security Leadership Vacuum
Only 6% of private and 13% of public companies have dedicated AI security leaders.
AI Security Leadership Status
Percentage of organizations by leadership approach
Leadership Vacuum Identified
Only 6% of private and 13% of public companies have dedicated AI security leaders. Two-thirds of private organizations have no AI security leadership strategy.
Dedicated Leader
CISO Leading
No Plan
Private Companies with Dedicated AI Security Leaders
Security Leaders Lack Full Confidence in Technical Assessment
Technical Assessment Confidence Gap
CISOs lack confidence in their ability to evaluate technical talent.
Technical Assessment Capability
Confidence in recruiting team's ability to assess technical depth
Only 16% of CISOs express high confidence. The majority report "somewhat confident" (45-48%), while 34-35% admit lacking confidence entirely. When organizations can't assess technical depth, they default to proxies like credentials and brand names. This potentially results in growing headcount without growing capability and increasing risk with each hiring cycle.
AI Governance and Risk Management Maturity
Shadow AI and accountability definition top the list of governance concerns.
Maturity Levels
Hover over a segment or use arrow keys to see details
73% lack mature AI governance (52% Developing but inconsistent + 21% Initial / ad hoc), with only 25% achieving Established and Repeatable processes and just 2% reaching Optimized maturity.
Developing but inconsistent
AI Challenges and Concerns
AI security spending averages anticipated spend of 7% of total security budget
Greatest AI Governance Challenge
Comparing governance and risk management challenges between private and public companies
Key finding: Shadow AI and accountability definition are the top two challenges for both company types, accounting for 48-51% of governance concerns.
Greatest Concerns Regarding AI Tools Use
Security concerns about AI tool adoption in private vs public companies
Key finding: Public companies show 8% higher concern about data exposure and privacy breaches, reflecting increased regulatory scrutiny and stakeholder expectations.
Cite Data Exposure as Top AI Risk
AI Governance Frameworks in Use or Planned
The NIST AI RMF has emerged as the leading framework
Key finding: NIST AI RMF dominates with 57-67% adoption, while 14-20% of organizations have no AI governance framework in place.
Public Companies Using NIST AI RMF
Section 07
Threat Landscape 2026
Third-party risk dominates security priorities, with AI-enhanced attacks and cloud misconfigurations completing the top three concerns.
Attack Vector Security Priorities
Top security priorities for 2026 ranked by CISO concern.
Third-party risk dominates 2026 priorities at 43%, nearly double AI-enhanced attacks (22%). This reflects growing supply chain complexity and recent high-profile vendor breaches.
Third-Party Risk as #1 Security Priority
Budget Justification Measures
How CISOs justify security budget requirements to leadership.
Demonstrating how security enables business outcomes and growth
Quantifying risk from growing digital footprint and threat exposure
Meeting regulatory requirements and avoiding fines
Risk-based financial analysis and return on investment calculations
Percentage of company revenue allocated to security
Only 10% use percentage-of-revenue models, indicating CISO sophistication in tying security to business value rather than arbitrary formulas.
69%
Business Impact
58%
Attack Surface
49%
Compliance
Section 08
NextGen Security Leaders
Deputy CISOs, Heads of Security Engineering, and domain-specific Directors represent the execution layer bridging strategy with hands-on program delivery.
Compensation Dynamics
NextGen compensation growth is outpacing CISO increases, signaling execution-layer talent scarcity.
Key Insight: The larger YoY compensation growth in NextGen roles compared to CISOs signals a fundamental market shift: execution capability now commands a higher premium than strategic oversight. As the CISO role increasingly emphasizes risk communication, board presentations, and stakeholder management, the market is bidding up the technical leaders who architect, build, and operate security programs.
Average Direct Reports
Employment Incentives
Signing bonus prevalence mirrors CISO patterns—public companies deploy larger bonuses to offset equity cliff risk.
Public Companies
65%
Offer signing bonuses
$73K avg
Private Companies
53%
Offer signing bonuses
$48K avg
Span of Control
NextGen security leaders manage teams that scale dramatically with company size, from lean startup teams to large enterprise operations.
10,000+ Employees
Company Size: 10K+
At enterprise scale, NextGen security leaders manage the largest teams, reflecting mature security programs with specialized roles.
Section 09
International CISO Landscape
European and international CISOs operate in distinctly different contexts; 32% lower compensation, broader regulatory responsibilities, and unique team scaling patterns shaped by GDPR and centralized governance models.
Compensation Gap: International vs. North America
International CISOs earn $469K total compensation which is 32% below the North American average of $750K.
International CISO Compensation Breakdown
Total compensation analysis by component
International CISOs earn $469K in total compensation, composed of $243K base salary (52%), $74K bonus (16%), and $152K in equity (32%). Equity represents nearly one-third of total compensation, highlighting the importance of long-term incentive alignment.
$469K
Total Compensation
$243K
Base Salary
$74K
Bonus
$152K
Equity/RSUs
Int'l Avg Total Comp
North America Avg
Compensation Gap
Team Scaling Patterns
6
Startup (<500)
19
Mid-Market (1K-5K)
25
Growth (5K-10K)
150
Enterprise (10K+)
Int'l Team Size at 10K+ Employees
North America 10K+
Enterprise Scale Difference
Functional Responsibilities: Regulatory-Driven Priorities
International CISOs oversee an average of 10 functions (vs 12 in NA) with significantly higher ownership of TPRM and Privacy.
Functions Under International CISO Direct Responsibility
All 22 functions showing regulatory-driven priorities: TPRM (85%), Privacy (73%)
TPRM (Third-Party Risk)
85% international vs 41% NA+44pp gap driven by GDPR, NIS2, and DORA regulatory emphasis
Privacy
73% international vs 58% NA+15pp gap reflecting GDPR enforcement and DPO reporting structures
10
Avg Functions Per CISO
12
North America Avg
85%
TPRM Ownership
73%
Privacy Ownership
TPRM Ownership
Privacy Ownership
Avg Functions Per CISO
Section 10
Strategic Imperatives for 2026
Six critical actions for security leaders navigating compensation, governance, and organizational challenges. Click any imperative to explore implementation details and related data points.
Roadmap Progress
Private boards should benchmark equity grants against public comparables and implement cash bonus multipliers to offset liquidity differences. The widening compensation gap threatens talent retention and may force private companies to over-index on equity promises that may never materialize.
Implementation Steps
- 1Benchmark equity grants against public company comparables
- 2Implement cash bonus multipliers for liquidity offset
- 3Establish transparent compensation review cycles
- 4Create retention packages tied to company milestones
Related Data Points
- Public CISOs average $814K total compensation
- Private CISOs average $686K total compensation
- Equity comprises 40%+ of public CISO packages
Establish joint OKRs with engineering leadership, embed security in developer workflows, and measure security as platform capability, not overhead. The shift toward technical reporting lines requires CISOs to speak the language of engineering velocity and product delivery.
Implementation Steps
- 1Establish joint OKRs with engineering leadership
- 2Embed security champions in development teams
- 3Implement security as code in CI/CD pipelines
- 4Measure and report security as platform capability
Related Data Points
- +5% YOY growth in private CISOs reporting to CTO
- CIO reporting remains at 22-34%
- CEO access drops to 3% at 10K+ employees
Designate AI security ownership, implement shadow AI detection, establish vendor AI risk assessment criteria, and adopt baseline frameworks (NIST AI RMF minimum). The governance gap represents the most significant structural vulnerability facing CISOs in 2026.
Implementation Steps
- 1Designate dedicated AI security ownership
- 2Deploy shadow AI detection and monitoring
- 3Establish vendor AI risk assessment criteria
- 4Adopt NIST AI RMF as baseline framework
- 5Create AI-specific incident response playbooks
Related Data Points
- Only 6% of private companies have AI security leaders
- 24% cite shadow AI as top governance challenge
- 85% lack confidence in technical assessment capability
Mandate combined D&O plus indemnification policies, and consider personal liability insurance for CISOs managing high-risk domains. Increasing regulatory scrutiny and personal liability exposure make this an existential requirement for security executives.
Implementation Steps
- 1Mandate combined D&O and indemnification policies
- 2Negotiate liability caps in employment agreements
- 3Consider personal liability insurance
- 4Document risk acceptance decisions formally
Related Data Points
- Only 15% of private CISOs have comprehensive protection
- Public CISOs fare better at 20% unprotected
- 25% have personal liability insurance
Modernize TPRM programs with continuous monitoring, automate vendor security assessments, and establish tiered risk frameworks that match vendor criticality to assessment rigor. Supply chain attacks and vendor compromises remain the most likely breach vector.
Implementation Steps
- 1Implement continuous vendor monitoring
- 2Automate security questionnaire processes
- 3Establish tiered risk assessment frameworks
- 4Create vendor incident response protocols
- 5Build contractual security requirements
Related Data Points
- AI-enhanced attacks rank #2 concern
- Cloud misconfigurations complete top 3
- 19% cite AI TPRM as governance challenge
Invest in domain-specific leadership development, create clear CISO succession pathways, and structure NextGen equity packages to retain high-performers through exit events. The next generation of security leaders will determine organizational security posture for the next decade.
Implementation Steps
- 1Create domain-specific leadership programs
- 2Establish clear CISO succession pathways
- 3Structure equity with retention vesting
- 4Provide board exposure opportunities
- 5Fund external leadership development
Related Data Points
- NextGen leaders manage 12-35 direct reports
- Deputy CISOs bridge strategy and execution
- Public companies use equity-heavy retention
Key Insight
Organizations face converging pressures: compensation inflation, AI governance immaturity, liability exposure gaps, and third-party risk concentration. Success requires parallel investment in NextGen talent development and structural security program maturity.