Korn Ferry and Heidrick Revenue Comparison: Executive Search Share

Executive search provided 31.8% of Korn Ferry fee revenue in FY2026 and 74.5% of Heidrick net revenue in CY2024, annual periods that do not overlap. These are shares of reported revenue for different firms and years, not a same-period ranking.

Executive Search Research LLC

Executive search was 31.8% of Korn Ferry fee revenue in FY2026 and 74.5% of Heidrick net revenue in CY2024. These are different annual periods that do not overlap, so the figures are not a same-period ranking. Each describes the mix of reported revenue at one firm in one year. Revenue records reported financial activity: it does not measure staffing, capacity or the quality of any mandate.

Korn Ferry’s fiscal year 2026 ran from 1 May 2025 to 30 April 2026, and its report was filed on 26 June 2026. Heidrick & Struggles’ latest public audited full year is calendar 2024, filed on 3 March 2025. The periods do not overlap. Everything below should be read as a composition comparison across those periods, not a same-period test of two firms’ performance.

Two revenue mixes in reported figures

Both firms report in US dollars. The original figures are printed in USD thousands and are divided by 1,000 and rounded to one decimal place here. Each firm defines its own revenue measure, so the group figures are not interchangeable amounts even though the currency matches.

Both figures are before reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. Korn Ferry reports fee revenue of USD 2,907,469 thousand and shows reimbursed out-of-pocket engagement expenses of USD 31,172 thousand separately. Heidrick & Struggles defines net revenue as revenue before reimbursements of out-of-pocket expenses, and adds USD 17,103 thousand of reimbursements to reach total revenue.

One further difference bears on the Heidrick denominator. Its net revenue includes On-Demand Talent revenue reported gross where a third-party contractor delivers the service. So net revenue does not imply that contractor costs have been removed. As a research-derived sensitivity only, subtracting all USD 108.487 million of On-Demand Talent contractor costs from the group denominator would raise Heidrick’s executive-search share to 82.7%. That is not a reported metric, not a restatement, not an alternative to 74.5%, and not proof of like-for-like comparability. Whether Korn Ferry reports contractor-delivered revenue gross or net was not established from its filing, and the two firms define cost of services differently.

Calculating the revenue gap

The composition gap admits a simple analysis. Korn Ferry’s non-executive-search revenue is larger than Heidrick’s, and almost all of the difference between the two group totals is accounted for by that excess. The formula, using unrounded USD millions, is:

((KF group revenue − KF executive search) − (HS group revenue − HS executive search)) ÷ (KF group revenue − HS group revenue) × 100

With Korn Ferry group revenue of 2,907.469, Korn Ferry executive search of 924.104, Heidrick group revenue of 1,098.573 and Heidrick executive search of 818.358, the result is 94.154%. That rounds to 94.2%.

The result is an arithmetic difference between reported amounts. Heidrick’s adjacent segments, On-Demand Talent and Heidrick Consulting together USD 280.215 million, sit in the term that is subtracted. They reduce the gap rather than contribute to it. On the Korn Ferry side the excess is spread across Consulting, Digital, Professional Search & Interim and RPO. None of that makes diversification the cause of anything. The ratios are descriptive arithmetic across the stated periods.

The overlap row uses Korn Ferry group revenue of 2,730.088 and Korn Ferry executive search of 846.208, with the same Heidrick inputs. Group ratio: 2,730.088 divided by 1,098.573, giving 2.49. Executive search ratio: 846.208 divided by 818.358, giving 1.03. Gap share: ((2,730.088 − 846.208) − (1,098.573 − 818.358)) divided by (2,730.088 − 1,098.573), giving 98.3%.

Across the periods examined here, the group total is a poor guide to the size of the executive-search segments. On the latest audited years the groups differ by a factor of 2.65 while the executive-search segments differ by a factor of 1.13. This does not settle which firm is larger in a common period, because the audited periods examined do not overlap. It does show that a group figure and a segment figure answer different questions.

Segment revenue and segment profit as reported

The next table lists each firm’s segments as reported in its audited segment note. Adjusted EBITDA here means a firm-defined profit measure before certain items, such as interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation and other specified adjustments. The profit column is each segment’s Adjusted EBITDA before specified central costs. The final column divides segment profit by the simple sum of the segments’ profit, not by group net profit.

Each firm’s central costs fall outside the segments, and the two firms report them differently. Korn Ferry reports Corporate Adjusted EBITDA of a negative USD 149.904 million; Heidrick reports research and development of USD 19.016 million and Global Operations Support of USD 63.905 million as reconciling items. Neither segment profit measure is a group net profit, and neither supports a comparison of client outcomes or of quality.

What the segment profit shares show and what they do not

In both firms, executive search carries a larger share of segment profit than of revenue. At Korn Ferry the four executive-search segments contribute 36.6% of the eight segments’ combined Adjusted EBITDA of USD 647.709 million, on 31.8% of fee revenue. At Heidrick the three executive-search segments contribute 104.2% of the five segments’ combined Adjusted EBITDA of USD 194.159 million, on 74.5% of net revenue.

The figure above 100% is arithmetic. Heidrick’s On-Demand Talent segment lost about USD 2.0 million and Heidrick Consulting lost about USD 6.2 million. From unrounded inputs the two together lost about USD 8.2 million. Their losses pull the denominator down, so search profit divided by a smaller total exceeds 100%. The share says nothing about how any search was delivered.

Nor should the segment profit shares be read as margin rankings between the two firms. The measures are defined by each firm, the periods differ, and Adjusted EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortisation and other specified items. What the figures describe is where each firm reports earning at segment level. They are not evidence of available staff, delivery capacity, resources for a particular assignment, outcomes or quality.

The counter-reading: breadth may add value to a client

A fair objection is that group breadth is part of what a search client may be buying. Assessment, consulting, digital tools, professional search and interim staffing sit alongside executive search, and Korn Ferry reports that approximately 27% of FY2026 fee revenue came from cross-solution referrals. That figure is company-reported in the unaudited business section of the filing. It is group-wide, the method is not defined, and it describes commercial links rather than the delivery content of a search.

Group breadth could be useful context, but group revenue does not itself measure the range of services available. The business mix shows what is included in each reported total. Reported revenue also does not establish what resources a particular mandate can draw on. Those questions depend on how an assignment is scoped and resourced, which these revenue figures do not address.

Three questions for procurement

The suggestions below are editorial inference from the reported data. They are not findings about any firm’s quality or capacity.

Ask for the search segment and region, not the group. A group total can be dominated by services outside executive search. At Korn Ferry, North America is 63.1% of executive-search fee revenue and Asia Pacific is 10.6%; Asia Pacific executive search is 3.4% of group fee revenue. At Heidrick, the Americas account for 68.1% of executive-search net revenue. Asking which region would deliver is a reasonable next step; the reported figures do not establish that any region has the staff for a given assignment.

Check what a search figure includes. The label is not applied identically across firms or periods. Korn Ferry’s 9 September 2026 recast filing presents a Search grouping that combines executive search with professional search and excludes interim. On FY2026 figures that grouping is 39.4% of fee revenue, against 31.8% for executive search alone. The 39.4% inputs come from the recast management discussion, which is unaudited. The recast filing also contains an audited recast segment note with an auditor report. Korn Ferry states that the filing is not an amendment or restatement, and the consolidated revenue figures used here are unchanged.

Ask how adjacent services are scoped and priced. Non-executive-search segments are 68.2% of Korn Ferry’s fee revenue and 25.5% of Heidrick’s net revenue. An employer can ask whether assessment, consulting, interim or digital services are proposed alongside the search and whether those services are priced separately. The reports examined show the adjacent businesses are material to both firms; they do not show how they are priced in a particular mandate.

Comparability notes and sources

Korn Ferry is changing its segment reporting. From FY2027, which began on 1 May 2026, it reports three regional segments, and its Search grouping combines executive search with professional search. The FY2026 Form 10-K as filed remains the latest audited source that separates executive search as distinct segments. The broader grouping figure used above comes from unaudited recast management discussion in the 9 September 2026 filing.

Heidrick & Struggles was taken private on 10 December 2025 and filed a Form 15 on 22 December 2025. The latest public audited annual report located for this article is the CY2024 Form 10-K. Korn Ferry’s most recent annual filing found is the FY2026 Form 10-K, with the 9 September 2026 recast filing as a later document recasting segment presentation. Those searches bound the sources used here; they do not establish that no other public figure will become available.

Method: figures were taken from the documents listed below. Segment revenue and segment profit are from the audited segment notes of the two annual reports. The recast Search grouping comes from unaudited recast management discussion. The referral figure comes from the unaudited business section. Other filings cited are non-financial. Conversion is from thousands to millions, and combinations are addition, subtraction or division only. Ratios use unrounded values. Segment revenue sums reconcile exactly to consolidated revenue in both annual reports. Two firms are not a market, and no market-share or ranking claim is made.

• Korn Ferry Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 30 April 2026, filed 26 June 2026. Segment note pages F-37 to F-40; income statement page F-7; business section pages 5 and 7.
• Korn Ferry Form 8-K filed 9 September 2026, Exhibit 99.1, recast segment information: audited recast notes with dual-dated auditor report; unaudited recast management discussion, including the Search grouping table on page 28.
• Heidrick & Struggles Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2024, filed 3 March 2025. Segment note pages 70 to 71; revenue recognition note page 51; accounting policies page 48; management discussion page 22.
• Heidrick & Struggles Form 15, filed 22 December 2025.
• Heidrick & Struggles take-private completion announcement, 10 December 2025.