What the Data Really Says about the Gender Pay Gap in Canadian Tech

Every year, the conversation around the gender pay gap spikes on International Women’s Day and then, too often, it fades. With our 2026 Artemis Canada salary survey, we wanted to move beyond the platitudes and show, in hard numbers, what’s actually happening for women in Canadian tech leadership.

It’s not a simple story. Yes, tech is high-paying. Yes, women are underrepresented at the leadership table. And even when women do make it there, they are still earning less money, receiving less variable compensation, holding less equity, and reporting lower well‑being at work.

Here’s what the data really says.

The headline: women earn 78 cents on the dollar

Across Canadian tech leadership roles, women earn roughly 78 cents for every dollar earned by men.

In base salary alone, the gap is stark:

• Median base salary for men: $194,500
• Median base salary for women: $152,000

That’s a 22% gap before we even get to bonuses or equity.

Because these are leadership roles in tech, we’re not comparing low-wage or early-career jobs. These are high‑responsibility, well‑paid positions where you’d expect compensation practices to be more mature. The fact that the gap persists here is a signal: this is not about “pipeline” or “years of experience” alone. It’s about how value is recognized and rewarded.

Tech is both high-paid and male-dominated

One of the most common rebuttals to discussions about pay inequity is: “But tech pays well!” That’s true and it’s exactly why this matters.

Tech salaries are high compared to many other industries. But those high salaries are not being shared equally. According to The Dais' 2024 Report Canada’s Got Tech Talent, Diversity of Canada’s tech worker, Canadian census data reported that women represent only about 25% of tech workers.

So we have a sector that is:

• Highly paid
• Disproportionately male
• And still paying women less for the same kinds of roles

If you care about closing wealth gaps in Canada, you have to care about what happens inside tech.

The gap narrows and widens with seniority but never disappears

One of the most revealing cuts of the data looks at the pay gap by seniority level. When we compare pay between men and women at the same leadership level, the story gets more nuanced but no less troubling.

Across levels, we see percentage gaps that move up and down:

• Individual Contributors: around 20% gap
• Lead / Manager: around 27% gap
• Head / Director: around 13% gap
• VP: around 12% gap
• C‑Level: around 26% gap

The exact numbers fluctuate, but one thing remains constant: the gap never hits zero.

At some levels, the gap shrinks. At others, it widens sharply again. This pattern tells us two things:

1. There’s no “safe” seniority level where women can expect parity just by progressing in their careers.
2. Structural issues such as how we level roles, design ranges, negotiate offers, and make promotion decisions are interacting in complex ways that advantage men more often than women.

For founders, executives, and boards, this should be a prompt to look closely at compensation bands, leveling frameworks, and promotion outcomes by gender, not just at a single point in time, but over multiple cycles.

‍The gap extends beyond base salary

Base salary is only part of the story in tech. Bonuses, STI/LTI plans, and equity ownership are where leaders build real upside and long‑term wealth.

Our survey shows that women are less likely to receive additional compensation, and when they do, they receive less.

On bonuses:

• 67% of men reported receiving a bonus
• 53% of women reported receiving a bonus

Among those who receive bonuses, the median amounts diverge again:

• Median bonus for men: $40,000
• Median bonus for women: $25,000

On equity:

• 54% of men hold equity
• 46% of women hold equity

This is where the conversation starts to shift from income to wealth. Salary pays the bills. Bonuses and equity build financial cushions, enable risk-taking, support career changes, and compound over time. When women systematically receive smaller bonuses and are less likely to hold equity, the long‑term wealth gap grows even when base pay gaps narrow.

It’s not just income inequality. It’s wealth inequality.

“But women seem happy enough with their comp…”

A surprising finding: despite meaningful gaps in base pay, bonuses, and equity, women and men in our data set reported identical compensation satisfaction scores.

On paper, that might look like good news, “everyone’s equally satisfied!”, but we think it reveals something more complex.

If women are being paid less on average but reporting similar satisfaction, a few dynamics may be at play:

• Different expectations shaped by past experience or market perception
• Less visibility into peers’ compensation and equity
• A tendency to normalize or rationalize gaps (“This seems fair for me”)

For employers, this should not be reassuring. Satisfaction scores don’t absolve you of inequity; they simply show you can’t rely on self‑reported satisfaction as proof that your compensation practices are fair.

Well‑being is equal at home but not at work

Compensation is only one piece of the experience. We also looked at self‑reported well‑being.

At home, the picture looks balanced:

• 66% of women report healthy well‑being at home
• 66% of men report the same

In other words, outside of work, well‑being is equal.

At work, the story changes:

• 57% of men report healthy well‑being at work
• Only 52% of women do

It’s not a massive gap, but it’s consistent and it emerges in the workplace, not in life overall.

So the issue isn’t general life satisfaction. It’s women’s well‑being dipping in the workplace.

When you layer this onto the compensation data, a pattern emerges: women are underrepresented in leadership, paid less, receive less upside, and are less likely to feel healthy at work even though their well‑being at home matches that of their male peers.

This isn’t about “women being less resilient” or “wanting different things.” It’s about the conditions we create in tech organizations.

Equity in leadership requires equity in compensation

Many Canadian tech companies can now point to women on their leadership team. Boards ask about it; employers include it in their employer brand. Representation matters. But representation without compensation equity is not real progress.

If women are in the room but consistently:

• Paid less in base salary
• Receiving fewer or smaller bonuses
• Holding less equity
• Reporting lower well‑being at work

…then they are being asked to carry the same responsibility and visibility with less financial security and less support.

Equity in leadership requires equity in compensation.

That means:

• Auditing pay and promotion outcomes by gender at each level
• Reviewing bonus and equity eligibility and allocation
• Being transparent about ranges and how decisions are made
• Correcting gaps proactively, not only when someone has the information and leverage to negotiate

The data shows we’re not there yet but it also shows where to start.

International Women’s Day is one day. The gap exists every day.

We built this report and LinkedIn series so leaders, founders, boards, and job‑seekers in Canadian tech can anchor their conversations in real numbers, not just narratives.

International Women’s Day is one day on the calendar. The pay, wealth, and well‑being gaps we’ve highlighted here exist every day.

If you lead a team or a company in Canadian tech, you sit closer than anyone to the levers that can change this: salary bands, equity pools, hiring processes, promotion criteria, and the everyday decisions that shape who thrives at work.

The data is clear. The question now is what you’ll do with it.

Discover more of our Salary data here.