Emma Watson Patrimoine net 2026
Dernière mise à jour August 3, 2026
As of 2026, Emma Watson has an estimated net worth of $96.7 Million, computed film by film and year by year from public records and published rates. Every input, rate, and source behind the number is on this page.
Calculation
- Salaires divulgués et backend documenté, chacun avec une citation
- Rôles non divulgués modélisés à partir de comparables divulgués pour leur époque, leur tranche budgétaire et leur étape de carrière
- Backend, avenants et crédits de production estimés à partir des médianes divulguées
Fast Facts
| Birthdate | April 15, 1990 |
|---|---|
| Birthplace | Paris |
| Breakthrough | Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) |
| Best Known | Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) |
Who Is Emma Watson?
Emma Watson was born April 15, 1990 in Paris, best known for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001). The earnings behind Emma's net worth come from film salaries, backend participation, and endorsement deals.
The model tracks Emma's earning years from 2000 to 2026, with the biggest single year in 2011 at about $33.1 Million of gross income. After representation fees, taxes, and living costs, what stays invested compounds at market returns into an estimated $96.7 Million today.
Data
Chaque ligne ci-dessous est calculée à partir des données publiques et des tableaux de tarifs publiés sur notre page méthodologie. Confiance: Catégorie C. Les chiffres documentés ne couvrent qu’une petite partie de ce chiffre, de sorte que la majeure partie est modélisée à partir de taux publiés et de comparables (les notes vont de A, principalement documentées, à C, principalement modélisées).
The Calculation
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Revenue | |
| Film pay with a disclosed figure (3 of 19 films) salaires par film et backend à partir des rapports cités | $45,000,000 |
| Film pay, modeled lead roles (4 of 19 films) era and budget-band medians of disclosed lead salaries (winsorized, thin cells shrunk toward the era median), blended with this actor's disclosed quote history when available; soft breakthrough blend near the career break year | $28,096,598 |
| Film pay, modeled post-breakthrough supporting roles (5 of 19 films) 12.0% of lead cells: lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio | $7,344,012 |
| Film pay, modeled supporting and early roles (7 of 19 films) 2,5% des médianes de l'époque : le taux de pré-célébrité | $11,433,726 |
| Points back-end, estimés 12% of disclosed lead deals included points, at a median 2.6% of box office; expected value on 3 commercially viable undisclosed lead roles; cash spread over 3 years | $280,879 |
| Approbations, estimées (3 partenariats de marque) 3 named partnerships x the $4.0M annual fee from the median disclosed film deal x a 4-year term, spread across the deal years | $48,000,000 |
| Résidus, estimés SAG residual rates on post-theatrical receipts assumed at half of box office, split by role share and spread over the ten years after each release | $55,575,774 |
| TV: Ballet Shoes Pauline Fossil; one engagement for a television film or special; network not identified, priced on the broadcast cell; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $75,000 |
| TV: The Vicar of Dibley Reverend Iris; guest default per credited year; broadcast network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return to Hogwarts Herself; guest default per credited year; streaming network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Pickled Herself; guest default per credited year; network not identified, priced on the broadcast cell; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| Retour sur investissement de l'épargne mixed portfolio: 55% actual 60/40 securities returns (taxed) + 45% US long-run home-price rate on the rest | $49,724,646 |
| Canonbury house, London appreciation, estimated documented $3,600,000 purchase in 2017 (reported GBP 2.8M, converted at the 2017 average rate), 5.0%/yr UK appreciation, net 7% selling costs; the purchase itself is already counted in savings (estatesgazette.co.uk) | $1,593,847 |
| Meribel chalet, France appreciation, estimated documented $1,200,000 purchase in 2008, 4.0%/yr France appreciation, net 7% selling costs; the purchase itself is already counted in savings (archive.boston.com) | $1,060,811 |
| Expenses | |
| Frais de représentation agent 10% + avocat 5% | -$29,253,965 |
| Taxes Taux effectifs au Royaume-Uni, année par année | -$66,308,987 |
| Dépenses personnelles measured household savings rates by income, times a 88% entertainment-household factor | -$55,190,109 |
| Valeur nette estimée | $96,652,675 |
Film par film
| Film | Year | Role | Budget | Billetterie | Salaire compté |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Little Women no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio) | 2019 | Supporting | $40,000,000 | $218,900,000 | $1,317,416 |
| Beauty and the Beast disclosed: THR: $3M upfront, escalating to $15M on Maleficent-level box office, which it hit | 2017 | Lead | $255,000,000 | $1,264,000,000 | $15,000,000 |
| Le Cercle no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid); personal blend cut to 11% on a smaller-than-usual budget; blended 11% with this actor's disclosed quote history ($9.0M personal, n=3); raised to 70% of recent similar-budget personal max ($15.0M); cap raised to similar-budget personal max within 50% of budget ($9.0M), capped at $9.0M | 2017 | Lead | $18,000,000 | $40,700,000 | $8,917,321 |
| Colonia no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid); personal blend cut to 11% on a smaller-than-usual budget; blended 11% with this actor's disclosed quote history ($15.0M personal, n=2); raised to 70% of recent similar-budget personal max ($15.0M); cap raised to similar-budget personal max within 50% of budget ($7.0M), capped at $7.0M | 2015 | Lead | $14,000,000 | $3,600,000 | $6,763,189 |
| Regression no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid); personal blend cut to 11% on a smaller-than-usual budget; blended 11% with this actor's disclosed quote history ($15.0M personal, n=2); raised to 70% of recent similar-budget personal max ($15.0M); cap raised to similar-budget personal max within 50% of budget ($7.5M), capped at $7.5M | 2015 | Lead | $15,000,000 | $17,700,000 | $7,245,967 |
| Noah no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $20.0M shrunk median for 2010s/tentpole (n=12) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio) | 2014 | Supporting | $160,000,000 | $359,200,000 | $2,276,559 |
| The Bling Ring no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio), capped at 15% of budget | 2013 | Supporting | $8,199,999 | $20,000,000 | $1,098,281 |
| This Is the End no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio) | 2013 | Supporting | $41,900,000 | $126,000,000 | $1,618,216 |
| The Perks of Being a Wallflower soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.79): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid); personal blend cut to 11% on a smaller-than-usual budget; blended 11% with this actor's disclosed quote history ($15.0M personal, n=2); raised to 70% of recent similar-budget personal max ($15.0M); cap raised to similar-budget personal max within 50% of budget ($6.5M), capped at $6.5M vs early terms | 2012 | Lead | $13,000,000 | $33,299,999 | $5,170,121 |
| Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – PT2 disclosed: reported $30M combined for the two final films | 2011 | Lead | $250,000,000 | $1,342,000,000 | $15,000,000 |
| My Week with Marilyn soft-breakthrough supporting blend (w=0.66) | 2011 | Supporting | $10,000,000 | $35,000,000 | $1,033,540 |
| Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – PT1 disclosed: reported $30M combined for the two final films | 2010 | Lead | $250,000,000 | $977,100,000 | $15,000,000 |
| Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.34): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $20.0M shrunk median for 2000s/blockbuster (n=1); blended 75% with this actor's disclosed quote history ($15.0M personal, n=1) vs early terms | 2009 | Lead | $250,000,000 | $934,500,000 | $5,843,087 |
| The Tale of Despereaux soft-breakthrough supporting blend (w=0.21) | 2008 | Supporting | $60,000,000 | $86,900,000 | $896,356 |
| Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $20.0M shrunk median for 2000s/blockbuster (n=1) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.12 | 2007 | Lead | $200,000,000 | $942,200,000 | $2,824,457 |
| Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $11.8M shrunk median for 2000s/tentpole (n=9) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.03 | 2005 | Lead | $150,000,000 | $896,700,000 | $692,357 |
| Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $11.8M shrunk median for 2000s/tentpole (n=9) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.02 | 2004 | Lead | $130,000,000 | $797,500,000 | $502,705 |
| Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $11.8M shrunk median for 2000s/tentpole (n=9) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.00 | 2002 | Lead | $100,000,000 | $879,800,000 | $350,818 |
| Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $11.8M shrunk median for 2000s/tentpole (n=9) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.00 | 2001 | Lead | $125,000,000 | $1,022,000,000 | $323,946 |
Comment fonctionnent les figures modélisées. An undisclosed lead role after the breakthrough gets the median of disclosed lead salaries for its era and budget band, capped at 15% of the film’s budget. Supporting and pre-breakthrough roles get 2.5% of that median, the documented going rate for actors before stardom. Films with no reported budget are treated as small productions. Undocumented backend, endorsements, and producer or director credits enter as separate estimated lines in the calculation above, built from disclosed medians. Every median comes from the published tables on our page méthodologie.
Patrimoine net Over Time
Solde modélisé à la fin de chaque année, correspondant au tableau année par année ci-dessous.
Année par année
| Year | Income | Frais de représentation | Taux d'imposition | Spent | Saved | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | $806,513 | $120,977 | 40% | $277,395 | $133,926 | $96,652,675 |
| 2025 | $819,166 | $122,875 | 40% | $281,747 | $136,027 | $92,001,069 |
| 2024 | $870,890 | $130,634 | 40% | $299,538 | $144,617 | $85,269,545 |
| 2023 | $891,914 | $133,787 | 40% | $306,769 | $148,108 | $78,450,241 |
| 2022 | $971,695 | $145,754 | 40% | $334,209 | $161,356 | $71,479,540 |
| 2021 | $1,713,883 | $257,082 | 40% | $481,793 | $392,287 | $76,532,742 |
| 2020 | $2,294,280 | $344,142 | 40% | $644,950 | $525,133 | $69,874,155 |
| 2019 | $3,781,598 | $567,240 | 40% | $1,063,052 | $865,562 | $64,275,309 |
| 2018 | $3,267,145 | $490,072 | 40% | $918,434 | $747,810 | $56,931,081 |
| 2017 | $23,916,791 | $3,587,519 | 40% | $6,723,297 | $5,474,267 | $55,857,065 |
| 2016 | $5,308,308 | $796,246 | 40% | $1,492,229 | $1,215,008 | $46,611,818 |
| 2015 | $12,989,509 | $1,948,426 | 40% | $3,651,507 | $2,973,143 | $43,042,669 |
| 2014 | $9,387,355 | $1,408,103 | 40% | $2,638,898 | $2,148,653 | $39,105,994 |
| 2013 | $18,154,508 | $2,723,176 | 40% | $5,103,450 | $4,155,349 | $34,716,137 |
| 2012 | $20,506,848 | $3,076,027 | 40% | $5,764,721 | $4,693,771 | $27,830,012 |
| 2011 | $33,118,209 | $4,967,731 | 40% | $9,309,926 | $7,580,361 | $21,675,316 |
| 2010 | $30,573,359 | $4,586,004 | 40% | $8,594,538 | $6,997,875 | $13,570,562 |
| 2009 | $6,798,365 | $1,019,755 | 40% | $1,911,102 | $1,556,064 | $6,148,749 |
| 2008 | $5,076,066 | $761,410 | 40% | $1,426,943 | $1,161,851 | $4,165,483 |
| 2007 | $4,457,051 | $668,558 | 40% | $1,252,930 | $1,020,165 | $3,301,783 |
| 2006 | $2,983,361 | $447,504 | 40% | $838,659 | $682,856 | $2,193,201 |
| 2005 | $2,088,034 | $313,205 | 40% | $586,971 | $477,926 | $1,428,570 |
| 2004 | $1,689,270 | $253,390 | 40% | $474,874 | $386,654 | $920,109 |
| 2003 | $1,280,481 | $192,072 | 40% | $359,958 | $293,087 | $509,262 |
| 2002 | $852,641 | $127,896 | 40% | $293,261 | $141,586 | $199,708 |
| 2001 | $332,008 | $49,801 | 40% | $114,192 | $55,132 | $59,928 |
| 2000 | $97,184 | $14,578 | 40% | $44,766 | $4,798 | $4,798 |
Model Notes
- RESIDENCE PROXY: UK resident throughout; UK effective rates before 2010 fall back to the model's 45% floor
- salary comps: 2 disclosed lead fee(s) flagged as non-market outliers (scale / far-below-quote) and excluded from era medians
- UK filing check: attributable company net assets $-360,277 (Breadcrumb Productions Limited (14330773, GBP -324,209 at 2024-12-31, band mid 88%)) sit below the modeled balance; counted as a documented floor, not added
Méthodologie
We rebuild Emma’s career as a yearly time series. Disclosed salaries and documented backend enter as reported, with citations. Undisclosed lead roles get the median of disclosed salaries for their era and budget band, capped at 15% of the film’s budget. Supporting roles and roles from before the breakthrough get 2.5% of that median, the going-rate ratio measured from disclosed pre-stardom deals. Films with no reported budget are treated as small productions, and every role is estimated unless a source documents it was unpaid. Representation fees come out at sourced rates, taxes follow the eras actually lived through, spending follows measured household savings behavior unless court documents say otherwise, and what remains compounds at real market returns. Undocumented backend enters as an expected value from disclosed deals, endorsements at the median disclosed ambassador fee, and producer or director credits at union-scale floors.
Le modèle complet, chaque tableau de taux et la façon dont nos estimations ont été comparées aux offres réelles sont disponibles. page méthodologie.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Emma Watson's net worth in 2026?
As of 2026, Emma Watson's net worth is an estimated $96.7 Million. The estimate is built film by film from disclosed salaries and documented backend, then year by year: income, minus representation fees and taxes, minus spending, compounded at real market returns.
How does Emma Watson make money?
Disclosed Harry Potter paychecks ($30M for the two Deathly Hallows films) and a Beauty and the Beast deal that reached a reported $15M. Six earlier Potter films model from the salary table's pre-stardom deals, and her fashion and beauty campaigns enter as an estimated endorsement line.
How is Emma Watson's net worth calculated?
Disclosed paydays enter as reported, with citations. Undisclosed lead roles use the median of disclosed salaries for their era and budget band, capped at 15% of the film's budget, and supporting or early-career roles use the documented pre-stardom fraction of that median. We subtract sourced representation fees, taxes for the years Emma actually worked, and spending from measured savings behavior, then compound at real market returns. Undocumented backend, endorsements, and producing credits enter as estimated lines from disclosed medians. Every rate and source is published.
How much does Emma Watson make per film?
Cela varie selon le rôle et l'époque, et le tableau film par film ci-dessus répertorie les rémunérations comptabilisées pour chaque titre. Les jours de paie divulgués entrent tels que déclarés. Les rôles non divulgués sont calqués sur ce que des acteurs comparables ont gagné à la même époque et dans la même fourchette budgétaire, les rôles principaux après la percée gagnant le plus et les rôles de soutien ou les premiers rôles une fraction documentée de ce montant.
Pourquoi le taux d'imposition est-il si élevé et les acteurs ne l'évitent-ils pas en faisant appel à une société de prêt ?
Tax comes out at the effective rate for where Emma lived each year, which is the rate shown in the year-by-year table. In a high-tax state like California, combined federal and state income tax reaches close to half of a top earner's income, so those years run in the mid-40s percent. A loan-out company, the corporation many actors run their income through, does not lower the tax on the money they take home. Its real advantage is deducting business costs such as agent, manager, and attorney fees, and the model already subtracts those as a separate line before any tax is applied. High-earning performers also fall outside the pass-through business deduction that other company owners can claim, so it buys them no rate cut.
Pourquoi ce chiffre est-il différent de celui des autres sites à valeur nette ?
Most sites publish a single number with no way to check it. This estimate is built in the open: every salary, rate, and assumption is on the page, and the page méthodologie lists every source.
Quelle est la précision de cette estimation ?
Aucune estimation de la valeur nette d’un particulier n’est exacte ; celui-ci est un modèle construit à partir de données publiques. La différence est que vous pouvez voir comment il a été construit et vérifier chaque étape. Le niveau de confiance situé en haut du calcul indique dans quelle mesure le chiffre repose sur des chiffres divulgués, et la page indique où un chiffre s'appuie sur une hypothèse.
Is Emma Watson rich compared to the average person?
Yes. A net worth of $96.7 Million is far above the median American household, which sits near $193,000 according to Federal Reserve data.
What is Emma Watson's biggest source of wealth?
On this page it is residuals, the largest line in the calculation at $55.6 Million. The full breakdown, with every other line and its source, is above.
How much does Emma Watson make from endorsements?
The model counts $48.0 Million in career endorsement income for Emma: 3 named partnerships x the $4.0M annual fee from the median disclosed film deal x a 4-year term, spread across the deal years. It is an estimate, since the individual deal values are not all public, and it sits as its own line in the calculation above.
Explorez d'autres acteurs
À propos de NetWorth Explained
We originally created NWE because nobody in the public-figure net worth space showed their work. Magazines and sites threw out big numbers while hiding behind vague claims of “proprietary algorithms” ou “insider knowledge.” That’s why we started the world’s only publication that transparently showed every assumption, every variable, and every calculation. We’re still the only ones who do it this way. En savoir plus sur NetWorth Explained.