Emma Watson Tài sản ròng 2026
Cập nhật lần cuối 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
- Mức lương được tiết lộ và phần phụ trợ được ghi lại, mỗi phần đều có trích dẫn
- Các vai trò không được tiết lộ được mô phỏng từ những vai trò có thể so sánh được tiết lộ cho thời đại, mức ngân sách và giai đoạn sự nghiệp của họ
- Phần phụ trợ, chứng thực và tạo ra các khoản tín dụng ước tính từ mức trung bình được tiết lộ
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
Mỗi dòng bên dưới được tính toán từ dữ liệu công khai và bảng giá được công bố trên trang của chúng tôi trang phương pháp. Sự tự tin: hạng C. Các số liệu được ghi lại chỉ bao gồm một phần nhỏ của con số này, vì vậy hầu hết nó được mô hình hóa từ các tỷ lệ đã công bố và các điểm so sánh (các điểm chạy từ A, hầu hết được ghi lại, đến C, chủ yếu được mô hình hóa).
The Calculation
| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Revenue | |
| Film pay with a disclosed figure (3 of 19 films) lương mỗi phim và phụ trợ từ báo cáo được trích dẫn | $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% mức trung bình của thời đại: tỷ lệ trước khi trở thành ngôi sao | $11,433,726 |
| Điểm phụ trợ, ước tính 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 |
| Chứng thực, ước tính (3 quan hệ đối tác thương hiệu) 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 |
| Số dư, ước tính 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 |
| Lợi tức đầu tư từ tiền tiết kiệm 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 | |
| Phí đại diện đại lý 10% + luật sư 5% | -$29,253,965 |
| Taxes Lãi suất hiệu dụng của Anh theo từng năm | -$66,308,987 |
| Chi tiêu cá nhân measured household savings rates by income, times a 88% entertainment-household factor | -$55,190,109 |
| Giá trị ròng ước tính | $96,652,675 |
Phim theo phim
| Film | Year | Role | Budget | Phòng vé | Tính lương |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Vòng Tròn 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 |
Các số liệu được mô hình hóa hoạt động như thế nào. 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 trang phương pháp.
Tài sản ròng Over Time
Số dư theo mô hình vào cuối mỗi năm, phù hợp với bảng theo từng năm dưới đây.
Từng năm
| Year | Income | Phí đại diện | Thuế suất | 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
Phương pháp luận
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.
Mô hình đầy đủ, mọi bảng giá và cách kiểm tra ước tính của chúng tôi so với các giao dịch thực đều có sẵn trên trang phương pháp.
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?
Nó thay đổi tùy theo vai trò và thời đại, đồng thời bảng theo từng phim ở trên liệt kê mức thù lao được tính cho mỗi tựa phim. Ngày trả lương được tiết lộ nhập như đã báo cáo. Các vai diễn không được tiết lộ được mô phỏng từ những gì các diễn viên có thể so sánh kiếm được trong cùng thời đại và phạm vi ngân sách, với các vai chính sau bước đột phá kiếm được nhiều tiền nhất và các vai phụ hoặc vai phụ chỉ là một phần nhỏ trong số đó.
Tại sao thuế suất cao như vậy và các tác nhân không né tránh việc này với một công ty cho vay?
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.
Tại sao con số này khác với các trang web có giá trị ròng khác?
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 trang phương pháp lists every source.
Ước tính này chính xác đến mức nào?
Không có ước tính giá trị ròng nào cho một cá nhân là chính xác; đây là một mô hình được xây dựng từ dữ liệu công cộng. Sự khác biệt là bạn có thể xem nó được xây dựng như thế nào và kiểm tra từng bước. Mức độ tin cậy ở gần đầu phép tính cho biết con số dựa trên các con số được tiết lộ bao nhiêu và trang đánh dấu nơi con số dựa trên một giả định.
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.
Khám phá các diễn viên khác
Giới thiệu về 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” hoặc “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. Đọc thêm về NetWorth Explained.