Emma Stone 순자산 2026
최종 업데이트 August 3, 2026
As of 2026, Emma Stone has an estimated net worth of $119.4 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
- 공개된 급여 및 문서화된 백엔드(각각 인용 포함)
- 시대, 예산 범위, 경력 단계에 따라 공개된 비교 대상을 모델로 한 비공개 역할
- 공개된 중앙값에서 추정된 백엔드, 보증 및 생성 크레딧
Fast Facts
| Birthdate | November 6, 1988 |
|---|---|
| Birthplace | Scottsdale |
| Breakthrough | Easy A (2010) |
| Best Known | La La Land (2016) |
Who Is Emma Stone?
Emma Stone was born November 6, 1988 in Scottsdale, best known for La La Land (2016). The earnings behind Emma's net worth come from film salaries, backend participation, and endorsement deals.
The model tracks Emma's earning years from 2003 to 2026, with the biggest single year in 2012 at about $30.4 Million of gross income. After representation fees, taxes, and living costs, what stays invested compounds at market returns into an estimated $119.4 Million today.
Data
아래의 모든 라인은 공개 데이터와 당사에 게시된 요율표를 바탕으로 계산되었습니다. 방법론 페이지. 신뢰: C등급. 문서화된 숫자는 이 수치의 작은 부분만을 차지하므로 대부분은 게시된 요율 및 비교 항목(등급은 주로 문서화된 A부터 대부분 모델링된 C까지)을 기준으로 모델링됩니다.
The Calculation
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Revenue | |
| Film pay, modeled lead roles (37 of 62 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 | $236,748,148 |
| Film pay, modeled post-breakthrough supporting roles (12 of 62 films) 12.0% of lead cells: lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio | $20,725,912 |
| Film pay, modeled supporting and early roles (13 of 62 films) 시대 중앙값의 2.5%: 스타덤에 오르기 전 비율 | $14,713,678 |
| 백엔드 포인트, 추정 12% of disclosed lead deals included points, at a median 2.6% of box office; expected value on 30 commercially viable undisclosed lead roles; cash spread over 3 years; 12 film(s) used band-specific box-office/budget multiples as a gross proxy | $14,215,963 |
| 추천 수, 추정(2개 브랜드 파트너십) 2 named partnerships x the $4.0M annual fee from the median disclosed film deal x a 4-year term, spread across the deal years | $32,000,000 |
| 잔차, 추정 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; 25 film(s) used band-specific box-office proxies | $35,757,834 |
| TV: The New Partridge Family credited role; guest default per credited year; broadcast network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Medium credited role; guest default per credited year; broadcast network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody credited role; guest default per credited year; cable network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Malcolm in the Middle Diane; guest default per credited year; broadcast network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Lucky Louie Shannon; guest default per credited year; cable network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Drive credited role; stated episode count; network not identified, priced on the broadcast cell; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $525,000 |
| TV: Saturday Night Live Herself (host) / Various characters; stated episode count; variety format tier; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $119,700 |
| TV: Robot Chicken Various voices; stated episode count; animation format tier; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $24,000 |
| TV: 30 Rock Herself; guest default per credited year; broadcast network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: iCarly Heather; guest default per credited year; cable network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Maya & Marty Herself; guest default per credited year; variety format tier; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: Maniac credited role; stated episode count; network not identified, priced on the broadcast cell; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $750,000 |
| TV: My Favorite Shapes by Julio Torres Shoe; 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 Mind, Explained Narrator; stated episode count; news format tier; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $25,000 |
| TV: Saturday Morning All Star Hits! Heather (voice); stated episode count; animation format tier; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $175,000 |
| TV: The Curse credited role; stated episode count; network not identified, priced on the broadcast cell; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $750,000 |
| TV: Fantasmas Genevieve; guest default per credited year; cable network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| TV: The Yogurt Shop Murders credited role; guest default per credited year; cable network family; priced from tv_episode_rates.csv (en.wikipedia.org) | $30,000 |
| 저축에 대한 투자 수익 mixed portfolio: 55% actual 60/40 securities returns (taxed) + 45% US long-run home-price rate on the rest | $45,958,783 |
| Expenses | |
| 대리 수수료 대리인 10% + 변호사 5% | -$52,592,584 |
| Taxes US-CA 유효 요율, 연도별 | -$134,332,298 |
| 개인 지출 measured household savings rates by income, times a 88% entertainment-household factor | -$90,285,626 |
| 추정 순자산 | $119,365,504 |
영화별 영화
| Film | Year | Role | Budget | 매표소 | 계산된 급여 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Debut no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2026 | Lead | $70,000,000 | – | $10,499,769 |
| Bugonia no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $8.2M | 2025 | Lead | $55,000,000 | $43,700,000 | $8,249,652 |
| Eddington no disclosed fee: modeled on the $21.7M shrunk median for 2020s/mid (n=1), capped at $3.8M | 2025 | Lead | $25,000,000 | $13,700,000 | $3,749,854 |
| Jerskin Fendrix no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2025 | Lead | $70,000,000 | – | $10,499,550 |
| The Yogurt Shop Murders no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio) | 2025 | Supporting | $70,000,000 | – | $2,849,898 |
| A Real Pain no disclosed fee: modeled on the $25.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $0.5M | 2024 | Lead | $3,000,000 | $24,900,000 | $450,000 |
| Fantasmas no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2024 | Lead | $70,000,000 | – | $10,499,124 |
| I Saw the TV Glow no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2024 | Lead | $70,000,000 | $5,400,000 | $10,499,124 |
| Kinds of Kindness no disclosed fee: modeled on the $25.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $2.2M | 2024 | Lead | $15,000,000 | $16,400,000 | $2,249,856 |
| Poor Things no disclosed fee: modeled on the $21.7M shrunk median for 2020s/mid (n=1), capped at $5.2M | 2023 | Lead | $35,000,000 | $93,499,622 | $5,249,189 |
| Problemista no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2023 | Lead | $70,000,000 | $2,700,000 | $10,498,294 |
| Bleat no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2022 | Lead | $70,000,000 | – | $10,496,678 |
| When You Finish Saving the World no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2022 | Lead | $70,000,000 | $196,920 | $10,496,678 |
| Cruella no disclosed fee: modeled on the $16.4M shrunk median for 2020s/tentpole (n=5), capped at $15.0M | 2021 | Lead | $100,000,000 | $233,500,000 | $14,990,474 |
| Saturday Morning All Star Hits! no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio) | 2021 | Supporting | $70,000,000 | – | $2,848,527 |
| The Curse no disclosed fee: modeled on the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2), capped at $10.5M | 2021 | Lead | $70,000,000 | – | $10,493,532 |
| The Croods: A New Age no disclosed fee: post-breakthrough supporting at 12.0% of the $23.8M shrunk median for 2020s/large (n=2) (lane_benchmarks role/post_breakthrough_supporting_ratio) | 2020 | Supporting | $65,000,000 | $215,900,000 | $2,847,132 |
| My Favorite Shapes by Julio Torres 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 | – | $1,317,416 |
| The Mind, Explained 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 | – | $1,317,416 |
| Zombieland: Double Tap no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.3M | 2019 | Lead | $42,000,000 | $87,107,000 | $6,285,102 |
| Maniac no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M | 2018 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $5,972,493 |
| The Favourite (2018 film) no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $2.2M | 2018 | Lead | $15,000,000 | $96,000,000 | $2,239,790 |
| Battle of the Sexes no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $3.8M | 2017 | Lead | $25,000,000 | $18,600,000 | $3,717,627 |
| Another Day of Sun no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M | 2016 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $5,897,029 |
| Audition (The Fools Who Dream) no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M | 2016 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $5,897,029 |
| City of Stars no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M | 2016 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $5,897,029 |
| La La Land no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $4.5M | 2016 | Lead | $30,000,000 | $471,981,104 | $4,424,008 |
| Maya & Marty 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) | 2016 | Supporting | $40,000,000 | – | $1,301,204 |
| Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping 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) | 2016 | Supporting | $20,000,000 | $9,700,000 | $1,301,204 |
| The Lonely Island no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M | 2016 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $5,897,029 |
| Aloha no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.7M | 2015 | Lead | $44,500,000 | $26,300,000 | $6,454,551 |
| Irrational Man no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $1.6M | 2015 | Lead | $11,000,000 | $27,400,000 | $1,597,471 |
| Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $2.7M | 2014 | Lead | $18,000,000 | $103,215,094 | $2,532,704 |
| Magic in the Moonlight no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $2.5M | 2014 | Lead | $16,800,000 | $51,000,000 | $2,364,399 |
| The Amazing Spider-Man 2 no disclosed fee: modeled on the $15.8M shrunk median for 2010s/blockbuster (n=11) | 2014 | Lead | $246,500,000 | $717,000,000 | $14,770,330 |
| The Interview 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) | 2014 | Supporting | $44,000,000 | $12,300,000 | $1,252,107 |
| Gangster Squad no disclosed fee: modeled on the $20.0M shrunk median for 2010s/large (n=8), capped at $10.1M | 2013 | Lead | $67,500,000 | $105,200,000 | $8,977,672 |
| Movie 43 no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $0.9M | 2013 | Lead | $6,000,000 | $32,438,988 | $807,618 |
| The Croods 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) | 2013 | Supporting | $155,000,000 | $587,300,000 | $2,173,514 |
| 30 락 soft-breakthrough supporting blend (w=0.79) | 2012 | Supporting | $40,000,000 | – | $1,102,004 |
| Sleeping Dogs soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.79): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M vs early terms | 2012 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $4,805,716 |
| The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.79): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $15.8M shrunk median for 2010s/blockbuster (n=11) vs early terms | 2012 | Lead | $215,000,000 | $758,700,000 | $12,561,875 |
| iCarly soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.79): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $6.0M vs early terms | 2012 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $4,805,716 |
| Crazy, Stupid, Love soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.66): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $20.0M shrunk median for 2010s/large (n=8), capped at $7.5M vs early terms | 2011 | Lead | $50,000,000 | $142,900,000 | $5,125,295 |
| Friends with Benefits soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.66): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $5.2M vs early terms | 2011 | Lead | $35,000,000 | $149,500,000 | $3,562,263 |
| Robot Chicken soft-breakthrough supporting blend (w=0.66) | 2011 | Supporting | $40,000,000 | – | $965,490 |
| The Help (film) soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.66): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $11.0M shrunk median for 2010s/mid (n=3), capped at $3.8M vs early terms | 2011 | Lead | $25,000,000 | $221,800,000 | $2,571,128 |
| Easy A soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.50): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $5.0M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $1.2M vs early terms | 2010 | Lead | $8,000,000 | $75,000,000 | $662,500 |
| Marmaduke soft-breakthrough supporting blend (w=0.50) | 2010 | Supporting | $50,000,000 | $89,900,000 | $1,450,000 |
| Ghosts of Girlfriends Past soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.34): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2), capped at $5.6M vs early terms | 2009 | Lead | $37,500,000 | $102,400,000 | $2,228,299 |
| Paper Man soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.34): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2), capped at $6.0M vs early terms | 2009 | Lead | $40,000,000 | $13,514 | $2,355,516 |
| Zombieland soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.34): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2), capped at $3.5M vs early terms | 2009 | Lead | $23,600,000 | $102,400,000 | $1,520,976 |
| I Know What Boys Like soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.21): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2), capped at $3.8M vs early terms | 2008 | Lead | $25,000,000 | $70,400,000 | $1,165,612 |
| The House Bunny soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.21): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2), capped at $3.8M vs early terms | 2008 | Lead | $25,000,000 | $70,400,000 | $1,165,612 |
| The Rocker (film) soft-breakthrough blend (w=0.21): no disclosed fee: modeled on the $18.8M median for its era and nearest band (mid), capped at $2.2M vs early terms | 2008 | Lead | $15,000,000 | $6,600,000 | $840,334 |
| Drive no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.12 | 2007 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $1,141,854 |
| Superbad no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $18.8M median for its era and nearest band (mid) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.12 | 2007 | Lead | $18,750,000 | $170,800,000 | $748,132 |
| Lucky Louie no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.06 | 2006 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $842,721 |
| Malcolm in the Middle no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.06 | 2006 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $842,721 |
| The Suite Life of Zack & Cody no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2) (pre-stardom rate) | 2006 | Supporting | $40,000,000 | – | $603,959 |
| Medium no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.03 | 2005 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $674,362 |
| The New Partridge Family no disclosed fee: 2.5% of the $19.4M shrunk median for 2000s/mid (n=2) (pre-stardom rate); soft-breakthrough weight 0.02 | 2004 | Lead | $40,000,000 | – | $583,580 |
모델링된 수치의 작동 방식. 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 방법론 페이지.
순자산 Over Time
아래의 연도별 표와 일치하는 매년 말의 모델링된 잔액입니다.
해마다
| Year | Income | 담당자 수수료 | 세율 | Spent | Saved | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | $9,172,886 | $1,375,933 | 45% | $2,363,724 | $1,924,600 | $119,365,504 |
| 2025 | $22,578,614 | $3,386,792 | 45% | $5,818,193 | $4,737,309 | $115,109,928 |
| 2024 | $26,655,867 | $3,998,380 | 45% | $6,868,844 | $5,592,774 | $102,878,822 |
| 2023 | $20,879,151 | $3,131,873 | 45% | $5,380,265 | $4,380,738 | $90,082,719 |
| 2022 | $22,150,802 | $3,322,620 | 45% | $5,707,951 | $4,647,548 | $78,660,923 |
| 2021 | $29,040,823 | $4,356,124 | 45% | $7,483,414 | $6,093,171 | $79,424,997 |
| 2020 | $13,033,144 | $1,954,972 | 45% | $3,358,459 | $2,734,536 | $67,636,900 |
| 2019 | $9,788,278 | $1,468,242 | 45% | $2,522,302 | $2,053,718 | $60,413,407 |
| 2018 | $12,432,137 | $1,864,821 | 45% | $3,203,588 | $2,608,436 | $52,746,749 |
| 2017 | $8,314,109 | $1,247,116 | 47% | $2,064,523 | $1,680,983 | $49,847,205 |
| 2016 | $26,348,293 | $3,952,244 | 47% | $6,542,692 | $5,327,214 | $44,759,425 |
| 2015 | $17,976,460 | $2,696,469 | 47% | $4,463,835 | $3,634,560 | $37,484,017 |
| 2014 | $20,626,564 | $3,093,985 | 47% | $5,121,898 | $4,170,370 | $33,046,671 |
| 2013 | $25,683,460 | $3,852,519 | 47% | $6,377,604 | $5,192,795 | $27,214,580 |
| 2012 | $30,369,092 | $4,555,364 | 43% | $8,110,260 | $6,603,565 | $20,166,922 |
| 2011 | $24,759,417 | $3,713,913 | 43% | $6,612,161 | $5,383,777 | $12,714,296 |
| 2010 | $13,759,405 | $2,063,911 | 43% | $3,674,537 | $2,991,895 | $7,059,437 |
| 2009 | $5,313,721 | $797,058 | 43% | $1,419,063 | $1,155,435 | $3,807,469 |
| 2008 | $4,370,590 | $655,588 | 43% | $1,167,194 | $950,357 | $2,420,775 |
| 2007 | $2,975,555 | $446,333 | 43% | $794,641 | $647,015 | $1,616,377 |
| 2006 | $2,342,593 | $351,389 | 43% | $625,604 | $509,382 | $927,326 |
| 2005 | $1,230,382 | $184,557 | 43% | $328,581 | $267,539 | $391,887 |
| 2004 | $640,815 | $96,122 | 43% | $209,384 | $101,091 | $119,978 |
| 2003 | $175,074 | $26,261 | 43% | $66,909 | $17,915 | $17,915 |
Model Notes
- 거주지 프록시: 이 배치에 대해 개별적으로 공급되지 않은 거주지입니다. 문서화될 때까지 US-CA 기본값 적용
- salary comps: 2 disclosed lead fee(s) flagged as non-market outliers (scale / far-below-quote) and excluded from era medians
- 이미지 출처: Wikimedia Commons via Wikipedia (Emma Stone)
방법론
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.
전체 모델, 모든 요율표 및 실제 거래와 비교하여 추정치를 확인한 방법은 다음과 같습니다. 방법론 페이지.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Emma Stone's net worth in 2026?
As of 2026, Emma Stone's net worth is an estimated $119.4 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 Stone make money?
영화 급여 및 문서화된 백엔드 참여.
How is Emma Stone'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 Stone make per film?
역할과 시대에 따라 다르며 위의 영화별 표에는 모든 타이틀에 대해 계산된 급여가 나열되어 있습니다. 공개된 급여일은 보고된 대로 입력됩니다. 공개되지 않은 역할은 같은 시대와 예산 범위에서 비슷한 배우가 얻은 것을 모델로 하며, 획기적인 이후의 주연은 가장 많은 수익을 올리고 조연 또는 초기 역할은 그 중 문서화된 부분을 차지합니다.
세율이 왜 이렇게 높은데, 배우들은 대출회사를 통해서 피하지 않는 걸까요?
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.
이 수치가 다른 순자산 사이트와 다른 이유는 무엇입니까?
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 방법론 페이지 lists every source.
이 추정치는 얼마나 정확합니까?
개인의 순자산 추정치는 정확하지 않습니다. 이것은 공개 데이터로 구축된 모델입니다. 차이점은 어떻게 제작되었는지 볼 수 있고 모든 단계를 확인할 수 있다는 점입니다. 계산 상단 근처의 신뢰 등급은 수치 중 공개된 숫자에 얼마나 많은 영향을 미치는지 보여주며 페이지에는 숫자가 가정에 의존하는 위치가 표시됩니다.
Is Emma Stone rich compared to the average person?
Yes. A net worth of $119.4 Million is far above the median American household, which sits near $193,000 according to Federal Reserve data.
What is Emma Stone's biggest source of wealth?
On this page it is film salaries, the largest line in the calculation at $236.7 Million. The full breakdown, with every other line and its source, is above.
How much does Emma Stone make from endorsements?
The model counts $32.0 Million in career endorsement income for Emma: 2 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.
다른 배우 탐색
NetWorth Explained 소개
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” 또는 “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. NetWorth Explained에 대해 자세히 알아보세요..