Full-time vs. part-time vs. virtual executive assistant: cost comparison

Executive assistant cost comparison

Three models dominate executive assistant staffing: full-time in-house, part-time in-house, and virtual. Each has a distinct cost profile, and each suits a different executive and organizational context.

The comparison most companies make is base salary versus hourly rate. That comparison misses the point. Total cost includes benefits, overhead, recruiting, and turnover, all of which vary dramatically by model. The right comparison is fully loaded annual cost against the scope of work the executive actually needs.

Wage data from the BLS wage data provides a verified baseline for in-house salary ranges, but total compensation often runs 25 to 40 percent above base salary once all employer costs are counted.

Full-time in-house EA cost

A full-time in-house executive assistant at the senior level earns $65,000 to $100,000 in base salary in most US markets. Senior EAs supporting board-level executives in major metros run higher. Loading that base for benefits, payroll taxes, equipment, office space, and a recruiting fee brings the total first-year cost to $85,000 to $140,000 depending on location and tier.

The advantage of full-time in-house is depth. The assistant is fully embedded in the organization, builds relationships across the company, and is physically present for in-office events and logistics. The disadvantage is the fixed cost structure: the full load runs whether the executive is traveling, on vacation, or in a slow period.

Full-time in-house is justified when the executive requires physical presence for a significant share of their support needs, when the role involves managing vendor and facilities relationships, or when the leadership team prefers a fully integrated model for senior-level coordination.

Part-time in-house EA cost

A part-time in-house arrangement typically runs 20 to 30 hours per week at an hourly rate equivalent to what a full-time EA would earn, placing the annual cost at $30,000 to $60,000. The model works when the executive support need is genuinely bounded and does not expand.

The primary risk of part-time in-house is scope drift. An executive who starts with light support needs often generates more work over time, and a part-time hire absorbs that additional work without a rate or hours adjustment. The arrangement that started as a 20-hour position becomes a 35-hour position within six months, with neither party acknowledging the shift.

Set explicit hours boundaries and a review date at the start of any part-time arrangement. When the scope grows past the contracted hours, either expand the hours formally or restructure the engagement before the assistant is stretched beyond what they can deliver at a high standard.

Virtual EA cost

A dedicated virtual executive assistant working full-time at $15 to $20 per hour costs $30,000 to $40,000 per year. There are no benefits, no employer payroll taxes, no equipment costs, and no office space allocation. The total cost is the hourly rate times the hours worked.

The distinction that matters is dedicated versus pooled. A dedicated virtual EA works exclusively for one executive, builds context over time, and functions as a genuine long-term support relationship. A pooled service assigns different team members to each request, which keeps costs low but prevents the assistant from building the executive-specific context that makes support genuinely useful.

For the full comparison of what is included in each model, see our piece on executive assistant cost. For the virtual model specifically, our guide to virtual executive assistant arrangements covers the day-to-day working relationship and what to set up before day one.

Choosing the right model

The decision comes down to the executive work profile. An executive who works primarily through digital channels, rarely needs in-person logistics support, and whose team is distributed is well-served by a dedicated virtual EA at significantly lower cost. An executive who needs on-site presence, manages a physical office, or has a support role with substantial in-person events and guest management is a better fit for in-house support.

The ROI calculation at each tier also differs. With an in-house full-time hire, the payback on the higher cost requires the executive to leverage the assistant heavily. With a virtual model, even moderate delegation produces a positive return because the cost floor is lower.

Part-time in-house sits between the two: less cost than full-time, more embedded than virtual, but with the scope-drift risk that makes it the highest-maintenance arrangement of the three to manage properly.