CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Framework for Corporate Governance

The Board of Directors has the ultimate authority for the management of the Company’s business. The Corporate Governance Guidelines, the charters of the Board committees, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the Standards for Director Independence provide the framework for the governance of the Company. Copies of the current Corporate Governance Guidelines, the charters of the Board committees, the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the Standards for Director Independence are available under the Investor Relations links on the Company’s website at www.idexcorp.com.

Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code

of Business Conduct and Ethics

The Corporate Governance Guidelines address matters such as election of directors, size and retirement age for the Board, Board composition and membership criteria, the role and responsibilities of the Board, director compensation, share ownership guidelines, and the frequency of Board meetings (including meetings to be held without the presence of management).

The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics sets forth the guiding principles of business ethics and certain legal requirements applicable to all of the Company’s employees and directors.

Director Independence

The Board has adopted standards for determining whether a director is independent. These standards are based upon the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and applicable laws and regulations, and are available on the Company’s website as described above. The Board also reviewed commercial relationships between the Company and organizations with which directors were affiliated by service as an executive officer. The

relationships with these organizations involved

the Company’s sale or purchase of products or services in the ordinary course of business that were made on arm’s-length terms and other circumstances that did not affect the relevant directors’ independence under applicable law and NYSE listing standards.

The Board has affirmatively determined, based on these standards and after considering the relationships described immediately above, that the following directors are independent: Messrs. Buthman, Cook, Milzcik¹, Mrozek, Parry and Satterthwaite, and Mss. Helmkamp and Warner. The Board has also determined that Mr. Silvernail is not independent because he is the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Board has also determined that all Board standing committees are, and throughout fiscal year 2016 were, composed entirely of independent directors.

Director Nominations

The Board believes that maintaining a diverse membership with varying backgrounds, skills, expertise and other differentiating personal characteristics promotes inclusiveness, enhances the Board’s deliberations and enables the Board to better represent all of the Company’s constituents. Accordingly, the Board is committed to seeking out highly qualified women and minority candidates as well as candidates with diverse backgrounds, skills and experiences as part of each Board search the Company conducts. The Board considers the following in selecting nominees for the Board:

Experience (in one or more of the following):

Personal attributes and characteristics:

Qualified candidates for membership on the Board shall not be discriminated against with regard to age, race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation or disability. In the past, the Company has engaged executive search firms to help identify and facilitate the screening and interviewing of director candidates. Any search firm retained by the Company to find director candidates is instructed to take into account all of the considerations used by our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, including diversity. After conducting an initial evaluation of a candidate, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will interview that candidate if it believes the candidate is suitable

to be a director. The Committee may also ask the candidate to meet with other members of the Board.

If the Committee believes a candidate would be a valuable addition to the Board, it will recommend to the full Board appointment or election of that candidate. Annually, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews the qualifications and backgrounds of the directors, as well as the overall composition of the Board, and recommends to the full Board the slate of directors for nomination for election at the annual meeting of stockholders.

Board Leadership

The Company’s Bylaws permit the Board to select its Chairman in the manner it determines to be most appropriate. The Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that, if the Chairman of the Board is not the Chief Executive Officer, and is an independent director, there shall be no Lead Director. If the Chairman of the Board is the Chief Executive Officer or is not an independent director, the independent directors shall elect an independent Lead Director.

William M. Cook has served as Lead Director since immediately following the 2015 Annual Meeting. The responsibilities of the Lead Director include:

The independent non-management directors of the Board meet separately as a group at every regularly scheduled Board meeting. The Lead Director generally presides at these non-management executive sessions. During 2016, the Board held eight meetings.

The Board believes that its current leadership structure provides independent board leadership and engagement while deriving the benefit of having the Chief Executive Officer also serve as Chairman of the Board.

The Chief Executive Officer, as the individual with primary responsibility for managing the Company’s day-to-day operations, is best positioned to chair regular Board meetings and to oversee discussion on business and strategic issues. Coupled with the existence of a Lead Director and regular executive sessions of the non-management directors, this structure provides independent oversight, including risk oversight, while facilitating the exercise of the Board’s responsibilities.

During 2016, each director attended more than 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and of committees of the Board of which he or she was a member. The Company encourages its directors to attend the annual meeting of stockholders but has no formal policy with respect to that attendance. All of the directors attended the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors oversees an annual assessment of enterprise risk exposure, and the management of such risk, conducted by the Company’s executives.

When assessing enterprise risk, the Board focuses on the achievement of organizational objectives, including strategic objectives, to improve long-term performance and enhance stockholder value. Direct oversight allows the

Board to assess management’s inclination for risk, to determine what constitutes an appropriate level of risk for the Company and to discuss with management the means by which to control risk.

Executive Officers

The Board selects the Company’s executive officers, delegates responsibilities for the conduct of the Company’s operations to those officers, and monitors their performance.

Communications with Our Board

Stockholders and other interested parties may contact the Board and the directors by writing to Denise R. Cade, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, IDEX Corporation, 1925 West Field Court, Suite 200, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045. Inquiries sent by mail will be reviewed, sorted and summarized by Ms. Cade before they are forwarded to any director.

BOARD COMMITTEES

Important functions of the Board are performed by committees comprised of members of the Board. There are three standing committees of the Board: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Each committee has a written charter that is available on the Company’s website as described above.

Subject to applicable provisions of the Company’s Bylaws and based on the recommendations of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Board as a whole appoints the members of each committee each year at its first meeting. The Board may, at any time, appoint or remove committee members or change the authority or responsibility delegated to any committee, subject to applicable law and NYSE listing standards.

The following table summarizes the current membership of the committees of the Board. Mr. Buthman joined the Audit Committee

following his appointment to the Board in April 2016.

Audit Committee

Pursuant to its charter, the Audit Committee has the authority and responsibility to:

² Mr. Milzcik is retiring from the Board immediately following the Annual Meeting.

While the Board of Directors has the ultimate oversight responsibility for the risk management process, the Audit Committee focuses on financial risk management and exposure, and legal compliance. The Audit Committee receives an annual risk assessment report from the Company’s internal auditors and reviews and discusses the Company’s financial risk exposures and the steps management has taken to monitor, control and report those exposures.

The Board has determined that each of Messrs. Buthman, Cook, Milzcik and Mrozek is an “audit committee financial expert,” as defined by SEC rules, and is independent, as defined by the NYSE listing standards.

The Audit Committee has adopted a written Related Person Transactions Policy regarding the review, approval and ratification of transactions with related persons. All related person transactions are approved by the Audit Committee. If the transaction involves a related person who is an Audit Committee member or immediate family member of an Audit Committee member, that Audit Committee member will not be included in the deliberations regarding approval. In approving the transaction, the Audit Committee must determine that the transaction is fair and reasonable to the Company. At the first Audit Committee meeting of each calendar year, or a subsequent meeting if the Audit Committee so chooses, the Audit Committee reviews any previously approved or ratified related person transactions that remain ongoing and have a remaining term of more than six months or remaining amounts payable to or receivable from the Company of more than $10,000. Based on all relevant facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the Company’s contractual obligations, the Audit

Committee determines if it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to continue, modify or terminate any such related person transactions.

During 2016, the Audit Committee held eleven meetings.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee’s primary duties and responsibilities are to:

To assist the Compensation Committee in discharging its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee retained Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (F.W. Cook) to act as an outside consultant. F.W. Cook is engaged by, and reports directly to, the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the nature of the relationship between itself and F.W. Cook, including all personal and business relationships between the committee members, F.W. Cook and the individual compensation consultants who provide advice to the Compensation Committee. Based on its review, the Compensation Committee did not identify any actual or potential conflicts of interest in F.W. Cook’s engagement as an independent consultant.

F.W. Cook works with the Compensation Committee and management to structure the

Company’s compensation programs and evaluate the competitiveness of its executive compensation levels. F.W. Cook’s primary areas of assistance to the Compensation Committee are:

F.W. Cook periodically provides the Compensation Committee and management market data on a variety of compensation-related topics. The Compensation Committee authorized F.W. Cook to interact with the Company’s management, as needed, on behalf of the Compensation Committee, to obtain or confirm information.

During 2016, Ms. Helmkamp, Mr. Parry, Mr. Satterthwaite and Ms. Warner served as members of the Compensation Committee. None of these directors (i) was an officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries during 2016, (ii) was formerly an officer of the Company or any of its subsidiaries, or (iii) had any relationship requiring disclosure by the Company under Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. There were no relationships between the Company’s executive officers and the members of the Compensation Committee that require disclosure under Item 407(e)(4) of Regulation S-K.

During 2016, the Compensation Committee held six meetings.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s primary purpose and responsibilities are to:

It is the policy of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee to consider nominees for the Board recommended by the Company’s stockholders in accordance with the procedures described under “STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS AND DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS FOR 2018 ANNUAL MEETING” below. Stockholder nominees who are nominated in accordance with these procedures will be given the same consideration as nominees for director from other sources.

During 2016, Ms. Helmkamp, Mr. Parry, Mr. Satterthwaite and Ms. Warner served as members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

During 2016, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held three meetings.

Equity Grants

Equity grants upon initial election to the Board of Directors are made on the date of appointment. Annual equity grants are made on the first regularly scheduled meeting of the Board held each year. All grants are structured to provide 100% of the expected value in the form of restricted stock unit awards, and are made under the IDEX Corporation Incentive Award Plan (Incentive Award Plan).

The restricted stock units vest in full on the earliest of the third anniversary of the grant, retirement, failure of the director to be re-elected to the Board, or a change in control of the Company. The restricted stock units are non-transferable until the recipient is no longer serving as a director, and are subject to forfeiture if the director terminates service as a director for reasons other than death, disability, retirement, or failure to be re-elected to the Board.

Since the start of 2015, directors have had the ability to defer payment of all or a portion of their annual equity grant.

Directors Deferred Compensation Plan

Under the Company’s Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, directors are permitted to defer their cash compensation as of the date their compensation would otherwise be payable. In general, directors must make elections to defer fees payable during a calendar year by the end of the preceding calendar year. Newly elected directors have up to 30 days to elect to defer future fees.

All amounts deferred are recorded in a memorandum account for each director and are credited or debited with earnings or losses as if such amounts had been invested in an interest-bearing account or certain mutual funds, at the option of the director. The deferred compensation credited to the interest-bearing account is adjusted on at least a quarterly basis with hypothetical earnings equal to the lesser of the Barclays Capital Long Term Bond AAA — Corporate Bond Index as of the first business day in November of the calendar year preceding the year for which the earnings are to be credited

or 120% of the long-term applicable federal rate (AFR) as of the first business day in November.

In accordance with SEC rules, no earnings on deferred compensation are shown in the Director Compensation table below because no “above market” rates were earned on deferred amounts in 2016. Directors must elect irrevocably to receive the deferred funds either in a lump sum or in equal annual installments of up to 10 years, and to begin receiving distributions either at termination of Board service or at a future specified date.

If a director should die before all amounts credited under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan have been paid, the unpaid balance in the participating director’s account will be paid to the director’s beneficiary. The memorandum accounts are not funded, and the right to receive future payments of amounts

recorded in these accounts is an unsecured claim against the Company’s general assets.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Non-management directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines. Non-management directors must comply with the guidelines within five years of their initial election to the Board. The guidelines dictate that all non-management directors must purchase or acquire shares of the Company’s Common Stock having an aggregate value at the time of purchase or acquisition equal to five times the current annual retainer.

As of December 31, 2016, all directors were either in compliance with the ownership guidelines or were proceeding towards meeting the ownership guidelines within the applicable five-year period.

Risk Assessment

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews the potential risks arising from our compensation policies, practices and programs to determine whether any potential risks are material to the Company. In approving the 2016 compensation program design, the Compensation Committee engaged in discussions with its independent compensation consultant and management regarding any potential risks and concluded that the Company’s compensation policies and practices are designed with the appropriate balance of risk and reward in relation to the Company’s overall business strategy, do not incentivize employees, including executive officers, to take unnecessary or excessive risks, and that any risks arising from the Company’s policies and practices are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

In this review, the Compensation Committee considered the attributes of the Company’s policies and practices, including:

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis and discussed its contents with management. Based on this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement.

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Executive Summary

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes our executive compensation philosophy and programs, and compensation decisions made under those programs for our named executive officers (NEOs) for fiscal year 2016, who are listed below.

Setting Executive Compensation

Role of Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee establishes the Company’s compensation philosophy, structures the Company’s compensation programs to be consistent with that philosophy, and approves each element of named executive officer compensation. In the case of the CEO, the Board of Directors reviews, ratifies and approves compensation recommendations made by the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Committee performs periodic reviews of executive pay tally sheets. The tally sheets outline each executive’s annual target and actual pay, unvested equity holdings and termination payments under various scenarios. Data from the tally sheets is considered by the Compensation Committee when setting target total compensation. Generally, the Compensation Committee reviews and adjusts target total compensation levels annually. Actual total compensation may vary from target based on performance and changes in stock price over time.

Generally, the amount of compensation realized historically, or potentially realizable in the future, from past equity awards does not directly impact the level at which future pay opportunities are set. When granting equity awards, the Compensation Committee considers market data and individual performance.

Role of Compensation Consultant

Our Compensation Committee has the sole authority to retain and replace, as necessary, compensation consultants to provide it with independent advice. The Compensation Committee has engaged F.W. Cook as its independent consultant to advise it on executive and non-employee director compensation matters. This selection was made without the input or influence of management.

Under the terms of its agreement with the Compensation Committee, F.W. Cook will not provide any other services to the Company, unless directed to do so by the Compensation Committee. During fiscal year 2016, F.W. Cook provided no services to the Company other than to advise the Compensation Committee on executive and non-employee director compensation issues. The Compensation Committee has not identified any conflict of interest raised by the work F.W. Cook performed in fiscal year 2016.

Setting Individual Executive Pay

The Compensation Committee formulates a recommendation of CEO pay based on the financial and operating performance of the Company, the Committee’s assessment of the CEO and a thorough review of the market benchmarking data discussed below. The CEO pay recommendations put forth by the Compensation Committee are then reviewed and subject to approval by the Board.

The pay packages for the other NEOs are set by the Compensation Committee after taking into consideration the recommendations of the CEO. Individual pay decisions are based on an assessment of the individual executive, utilizing the following criteria:

The Compensation Committee reviews pay data from various sources as one input in determining appropriate target compensation levels. The Compensation Committee utilizes the expertise of its independent compensation consultant, F.W. Cook, in developing compensation recommendations for the NEOs, including the CEO. The Committee believes that to attract and retain qualified management, total direct compensation should be competitively targeted within a range that includes market median for comparable positions at comparable companies, with market compensation data being only one of many factors considered by the Compensation Committee when setting the compensation levels for any particular executive. While an individual executive’s target compensation is positioned within the competitive range based on the individual factors listed above, actual compensation in any given year should and does vary from target based on Company and individual performance.

The Compensation Committee undertook a review and analysis to ensure that the 2016 executive compensation programs appropriately reflected the market for talent. The Committee considered relevant market pay practices to ensure the Company’s ability to recruit and retain high performing talent across its diversified markets and global footprint. Two surveys and a peer group analysis were utilized for the 2016 executive compensation market analysis for the NEOs.

Survey Data

The Willis Towers Watson Executive Compensation Database survey and the Equilar Top 25 Survey were used because they include a broad range of manufacturing companies that are comparable to the Company in size, geography and industry.

Peer Companies

The peer group of companies identified below consists of companies that are similar to the Company in terms of their size (i.e., revenue, net income, and market capitalization), diversified industry profile (ranging from customized manufacturing solutions to emerging markets in highly specialized health science technology), investment in research and development, global presence, and have executive officer positions that are comparable to the Company’s in terms of breadth, complexity and scope of responsibilities. The companies listed below are the same group of companies used to benchmark pay in 2015.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

As more fully discussed below, the Company’s executive compensation philosophy is that its compensation program should: (1) align the interests of management and stockholders, (2) motivate and retain the management team with a focus on pay-for-performance, and (3) result in executives holding meaningful amounts of the Company’s Common Stock.

Our 2016 executive compensation program elements were aligned with the interests of our stockholders by linking our incentive compensation performance metrics to the following key indicators of the Company’s overall financial performance: EPS, cash flow conversion, organic sales growth, and TSR relative to companies in the Russell Midcap Index. We believe that our executives should have a financial stake in our long-term success. As described in greater detail below, the Board of Directors established stock ownership guidelines in 2006 that require covered executive officers, including the NEOs, to maintain a stake in the long-term success of our business.

In addition, the Company’s insider trading policy prohibits speculative and derivative trading and short selling by all employees and directors. The policy further prohibits pledging Company securities and hedging transactions with respect to Company securities. We believe these requirements along with our incentive programs effectively align the interests of management and stockholders and motivate the creation of long-term stockholder value.

We believe that the mix of base salary, short-term and long-term incentives with appropriate performance metrics and targets provide a motivational element whereby executives are paid according to how the Company performs, and that they have direct line of sight to what it takes to outperform and thus achieve pay above market median. We seek to retain our executives primarily by setting our compensation and benefits at competitive levels relative to companies of similar size, scope and

complexity. We believe that our executives have skills that are transferrable across industries and are sought after by similar-sized as well as larger diversified manufacturing companies. As a result, we do include companies in our peer group that are more than two times the Company’s revenue level.

Our long-term incentive program consists of performance-based stock units, restricted stock and stock options. Our long-term incentive award grants are targeted to be competitive with the market and, depending upon Company performance, can result in significant share ownership opportunities for our executives. As stated above and detailed below, our stock ownership guidelines require our executives to maintain specified stock ownership levels.

When combining the long-term incentive grant levels that are paid out in the Company’s common stock and the required ownership levels, the result is that our executives hold meaningful amounts of the Company’s Common Stock.

2016 Executive Compensation Program

The following discussion describes our 2016 compensation elements and 2016 compensation decisions related to our NEOs. Our NEOs consist of our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officers and three other most highly compensated executive officers. For 2016, our named executive officers were Andrew K. Silvernail, our Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; Michael J. Yates,

our Vice President, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer; Heath A. Mitts, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Eric D. Ashleman, our Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Denise R. Cade, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary; and Daniel J. Salliotte, our Senior Vice President, Mergers & Acquisitions and Treasury.

A Balanced Perspective

Maintaining a balanced perspective is a core part of the Company’s business strategy. While short-term performance is vital to the financial well-being of the Company, the long-term health of the Company requires the appropriate emphasis on new products, technologies and investments that will enable future growth and deliver long-term stockholder value. The latter requires that employees take calculated risks to capitalize on anticipated changes in the Company’s numerous businesses.

The Compensation Committee believes that balancing the proportion of cash and non-cash awards, as well as short-term versus long-term awards, is important to motivate performance while mitigating risk. Cash-based awards are important in motivating executives for the short-term, while long-term incentives focus executives who have the greatest ability to impact business results on managing the business for the long-term, and reinforce the link between their earnings opportunity and the long-term growth of the Company.

Short-Term Incentives — Incentive Award Plan

Messrs. Silvernail and Ashleman’s and Ms. Cade’s 2016 annual incentive bonus took the form of a cash performance award under the stockholder-approved Incentive Award Plan in order to allow their bonuses to be deductible under IRC Section 162(m). In 2016, the Compensation Committee granted Messrs. Silvernail and Ashleman and Ms. Cade cash performance awards with a maximum aggregate payment amount equal to 2% of the Company’s 2016 operating income contingent on the Company achieving a minimum adjusted EPS of $3.09.

Adjusted EPS excludes from earnings per share the impact of acquisition and divestiture-related income and charges, and restructuring charges. Under the terms of the awards, no bonus would be paid if the Company did not achieve adjusted EPS of $3.09. The Compensation Committee set Mr. Silvernail’s actual performance award for 2016 at $1,203,048, Mr. Ashleman’s actual performance award at $486,675 and Ms. Cade’s actual performance award at $327,046.

In setting the actual awards, the Compensation Committee considered the actual performance of the Company using the metrics in the Business Performance Factor described below, individual performance and the amounts that the NEOs

would have earned as an annual cash bonus if they participated in the Management Incentive Compensation Plan (MICP—described below) on substantially the same terms as other company executives. Similar to the awards under the MICP, the Compensation Committee limits maximum payouts to 200% of target payout for each executive.

Short-Term Incentives — Management Incentive Compensation Plan

Mr. Yates, as Interim Chief Financial Officer, was not subject to the deduction limitations under IRC Section 162(m), and therefore he participated in the Company’s MICP, as did Mr. Salliotte. Mr. Mitts resigned from the Company effective September 9, 2016, and therefore did not earn a cash bonus under the MICP. The MICP provides participants with the opportunity to earn annual cash bonuses.

The amount of the annual cash bonus paid to each participant under the MICP is determined under the following formula:

Annual Bonus = Base Salary x Individual Target Bonus Percentage x Business Performance Factor

Individual Target Bonus Percentage for the year is a percentage of the participant’s base salary and is based on the participant’s position and market data.

The Business Performance Factor (discussed in more detail below) is calculated based on measurable corporate quantitative objectives, which are given a combined 70% weighting, and one strategic measure with a 30% weighting.

For 2016, the measurable quantitative objectives within the Business Performance Factor were adjusted EPS and adjusted cash flow conversion. Adjusted EPS excludes from reported earnings per share the impact of acquisition and divestiture-related income and charges, and restructuring charges (EPS Adjustments). Adjusted cash flow conversion is cash flow as a percent of net income excluding the impact of the EPS Adjustments. The payout of each quantitative objective is a function of the amount by which actual performance exceeds or falls short of goal, with a maximum payout of

200% of target for each objective. For 2016, no bonus was payable unless a minimum threshold for adjusted EPS was met. The adjusted EPS threshold for 2016 was $3.09.

For 2016, the 30% strategic measure was organic sales growth. Organic sales growth is a critical business metric and helps identify the underlying health of the businesses and management’s ability to increase sales through innovation and customer focus. Organic sales is defined as net sales of the Company adjusted to exclude the impact of foreign currency translation and sales from acquired businesses during the first twelve months of ownership. The goal for organic sales growth is established relative to expected growth in key markets, such as industrial, health and science instrumentation, energy and fire and rescue.

Sign-On Bonus

In certain circumstances, we may offer cash sign-on bonuses to attract executive talent as determined on a case-by-case basis after taking into account the specific circumstances involving hiring the executive. Pursuant to Ms. Cade’s employment offer letter and in order to attract and retain Ms. Cade, the Company paid Ms. Cade a sign-on bonus of $228,000 in March 2016.

2016 Long-Term Incentive Awards

In 2016, NEOs received annual long-term incentive awards consisting of performance stock units (PSUs) and stock options. The Company eliminated restricted stock awards from the 2016 annual long-term incentive grant to the NEOs in order to emphasize the link between pay and performance. Restricted stock awards represented approximately 15% of the long-term incentive grants to NEOs in 2014 and 2015.

TSR Measure

The PSUs have a three-year performance period and utilize a relative TSR measure. The Company’s relative TSR will be measured against the TSR of companies in the Russell Midcap Index at the end of the three-year performance period. If the Company achieves 50th percentile TSR performance as compared to the group of companies, each NEO will receive the target number of performance units paid out in shares of the Company’s Common Stock. Threshold performance is at the 33^rd percentile, which will result in a payout equal to 33% of target and performance below this level will result in zero payout. Maximum payout is 250% of target number of shares for 80^th percentile achievement or higher. Payouts are interpolated between the 33^rd percentile and 50^th percentile and between the 50^th percentile and 80^th percentile performance. Cumulative dividend equivalent payments will be made at the end of the performance period based on the number of shares of common stock received by each executive.

In selecting relative TSR as the measure, the Compensation Committee noted that TSR is highly correlated with a combination of other metrics that are important to the Company and to investors, notably: return on invested capital, operating profit margin and compound annual sales growth rate (CAGR).

Comparator Group

For the 2016 PSU grant, the Committee selected the Russell Midcap Index companies as the comparator group for relative TSR. In selecting the Russell Midcap Index companies, the Committee’s objective was to have a sizeable group of companies similar in revenue and market capitalization to the Company. In addition, the Committee seeks to align with the mutual funds within our top shareholder firms as they generally hold a broad range of investments covering multiple industries. The current outstanding, unvested 2015 PSU grant continues to be measured on TSR compared to companies in the S&P Midcap 400 Industrials Index.

Difference between Long-Term Incentive Components

The Compensation Committee believes that PSUs, stock options and restricted stock all incent management actions that drive the creation of stockholder value and promote executive stock ownership. However, each long-term incentive component has different characteristics. The value of the PSUs after the three-year performance period is directly linked to the relative TSR as described above as well as the stock price movement during the performance period. Stock options provide value only to the extent that the Company’s stock price appreciates above the stock price on the date of grant. Restricted stock awards provide value regardless of whether the Company’s stock price appreciates, and help retain executives over the course of business and market cycles that may negatively impact the Company’s operations and stock price in the short term. While the Company did not include restricted stock awards in the annual grant to the

NEOs, the Company continues to provide restricted stock awards for special equity awards and for annual grants below the executive leadership level. In 2016, Mssrs. Yates and Salliotte each received off-cycle restricted stock awards at the time of Mr. Mitts’ departure to aid in retention and reward them for their additional efforts during the CFO transition period.

Long-term incentive awards are generally made on an annual basis, or at the time of a special event (such as upon hiring or promotion). We typically grant awards on the date of the first Board of Directors meeting of a year, or the date of the annual meeting of stockholders. We attempt to make awards during periods when we do not have non-public information which could impact our stock price. Working with its independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee granted long-term incentive awards to the NEOs in early 2016. Other than the CEO, each NEO has a long-term incentive target stated as a percentage of base salary. The long-term incentive targets are established on an individual basis taking into consideration market median practice for each role, and individual impact and performance.

The Compensation Committee may grant awards above or below target based on individual and Company performance and did grant awards above target in 2016 based on individual performance and Company performance, including top quartile one-year cumulative TSR in 2015 as compared to the peer group of companies used to benchmark executive pay listed above. The Company’s three-year cumulative TSR was ranked at the 92nd percentile as compared to the same group of peer companies.

For the CEO, the Compensation Committee recommended a long-term incentive award based on an assessment of the CEO’s performance and pay position as described under “Setting Executive Compensation.”

Our PSU grant for the 2014-2016 performance period resulted in a 141% payout based on a

35% TSR, which ranked as the 58th percentile when compared to companies in the S&P 400 Midcap Industrials Index.

Other Compensation Components

Employee Benefits

The NEOs participate in group health, welfare and qualified retirement programs available to all of the Company’s employees. The NEOs also participate in nonqualified supplemental retirement plans, deferred compensation arrangements and supplemental disability benefits. Participation in these nonqualified plans is intended to provide the NEOs with the opportunity to accumulate retirement benefits at levels above the limitations imposed by tax qualified plans. For a more complete explanation of these plans, see the narrative following the 2016 Summary Compensation Table, the Pension Benefits at 2016 Fiscal Year End table below, the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation at 2016 Fiscal Year End table, and the discussion under “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control.”

Severance and Change in Control Benefits

Each of the NEOs are entitled to severance benefits under the terms of written agreements in the event that their employment is actually or constructively terminated without cause. The amount of the benefit, which varies with the individual, depends on whether or not the termination is in connection with a change in control. The level of each NEO’s severance benefits reflects the Company’s perception of the market for their positions at the time the agreements were put in place. For additional information, see the section below entitled Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control.

Perquisites

The Compensation Committee believes in providing limited perquisites in line with market practice. The NEOs are provided with a car allowance. The CEO is entitled to limited use of

the Company’s leased aircraft for non-business purposes. For further details on these perquisites, see the “Narrative to Summary Compensation Table” below.

Other Executive Compensation Matters

Stock Grant Practices

For all newly issued stock option awards, the exercise price of the stock option award will be the closing price of our Common Stock on the NYSE on the date of the grant. If the grant date for the annual awards falls on a weekend, the exercise price of stock option awards will be the closing price of our Common Stock on the NYSE on the last trading day preceding the date of grant.

Stock Ownership

Consistent with its executive pay philosophy, the Company requires that executive officers maintain minimum ownership levels of the Company’s Common Stock. The following stock ownership guidelines for NEOs were established by the Board of Directors in 2006 and modified in 2015.

NEOs must comply with these ownership requirements within five years of date of hire or promotion. Counted for purposes of satisfying ownership requirements are shares directly owned and unvested restricted shares and performance stock units at target. As of December 31, 2016, all NEOs had met or were proceeding towards meeting the ownership guidelines within the applicable five-year period.

Hedging and Pledging

All directors and officers of the Company are prohibited from (i) pledging Company securities (including through holding Company securities in margin accounts) and (ii) engaging in any transaction in which they may profit from short-term speculative swings in the value of the Company’s securities (“hedging”). For this purpose, “hedging” includes “short-sales” (selling borrowed securities that the seller hopes can be purchased at a lower price in the future) or “short sales against the box” (selling, but not delivering, owned securities), “put” and “call” options (publicly available rights to sell or buy securities within a certain period of time at a specified price or the like), and other hedging transactions designed to minimize the risk inherent in owning the Company’s stock, such as zero-cost collars and forward sales contracts.

Clawbacks

To the extent not in violation of applicable law, the Company reserves the right to recover, or clawback, from current or former directors and officers any wrongfully earned performance-based compensation, including stock-based awards, upon the determination by the Compensation Committee that:

Tax Gross-Up Provisions

In February 2011, the Compensation Committee adopted a policy that the Company will not enter into any new agreements that include excise tax gross-up provisions with respect to payments contingent upon a change in control of the Company. No executives are eligible for an excise tax gross-up.

The Compensation Committee has exclusive authority to modify, interpret and enforce this provision in compliance with applicable law.

Accounting and Tax Implications — Deductibility of Executive Compensation

In developing compensation programs, the Compensation Committee reviews the estimated accounting and tax impact of all elements of the executive compensation program. Generally, an accounting expense is accrued over the requisite service period of the particular pay element (generally equal to the performance period) and the Company realizes a tax deduction upon payment to, or realization by, the executive. Cash awards, performance stock units and stock options granted under the Incentive Award Plan

are intended to satisfy the requirements for performance-based compensation under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 162(m). Restricted stock awards (which vest based on continued employment with the Company) do not qualify as performance-based compensation and, therefore, may not be tax-deductible as a result of the limitations of IRC Section 162(m).

IRC Section 162(m) limits the tax deductibility by the Company of annual compensation in excess of $1 million paid to the CEO and any of the three other most highly compensated executive officers, other than the CFO. While the tax impact of any compensation arrangement is one factor to be considered, that impact is evaluated in light of the Compensation Committee’s overall compensation philosophy and objectives. While it is a goal of the Compensation Committee to maximize the deductibility of executive compensation, the Committee retains the discretion to compensate officers in a manner commensurate with performance and the competitive environment for executive talent. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee may award compensation to the executive officers that is not fully deductible if it determines the compensation is consistent with its philosophy and is in the Company’s and its stockholders’ best interests.

Narrative to Summary Compensation Table

Perquisites and Supplemental Disability

In addition to benefits generally available to all other U.S.-based non-union employees, the CEO and other NEOs receive an auto allowance and participate in a supplemental long-term disability program. The supplemental disability benefit is in addition to the group long-term disability benefit generally available to all U.S.-based non-union employees. The group long-term disability plan provides an annual benefit of 60% of the first $300,000 of base salary, or an annual maximum benefit of $180,000 per year. For the NEOs, the supplemental program provides an annual benefit of 60% of their base salary above $300,000, with a maximum supplemental benefit of $60,000 per year. The CEO is also offered the personal use of the Company leased aircraft (limited to 25 hours per year).

Retirement Benefits

The Company maintains two tax-qualified retirement plans for all employees in which the CEO and other NEOs participate: the IDEX Corporation Savings Plan, which consists of a 401(k) with a prescribed matching contribution (401(k)) and a defined contribution portion (Defined Contribution), and the IDEX Corporation Retirement Plan, which is a defined benefit plan (Pension Plan). Mr. Salliotte is the only NEO who has accrued benefits under the Pension Plan. None of the NEOs actively accrued any benefits under the Pension Plan in 2016.

Defined Contribution

The Defined Contribution portion of the IDEX Corporation Savings Plan is an ongoing tax-qualified “defined contribution” plan that provides contributions based on a participant’s compensation and a combination of the participant’s age and years of service as shown below:

Under the plan, participants are entitled to receive the lump-sum value of their vested account at termination of employment subject to distribution rules under the law. Account balances are 100% vested after three years of service.

401(k)

The 401(k) is an on-going tax-qualified “401(k)” plan that provides a matching contribution based on the employee’s contribution up to 8% of eligible compensation. The maximum matching contribution by the Company is 4% of eligible compensation. The matching contribution vests 20% for each year of service and is 100% vested after 5 years of service.

Pension Plan

During 2005, the Company redesigned its retirement plans to eliminate the Pension Plan for employees hired after 2004. Employees who participated in the Pension Plan as of December 31, 2005 who met certain age and service requirements were given the one-time opportunity to choose to stay in the Pension Plan with the then current match in the 401(k)

Plan (maximum match of 2.8% of eligible pay); or to begin participating in the Defined Contribution Plan as of January 1, 2006, with an enhanced match in the 401(k) (maximum match of 4% of eligible pay). Employees who chose this option retain, by law, a frozen benefit in the Pension Plan as of December 31, 2005. Mr. Salliotte chose to begin participation in the Defined Contribution Plan. He has a frozen

benefit under the Pension Plan as of December 31, 2005. The monthly accrued benefit for Mr. Salliotte under the Pension Plan upon retirement at age 65 will not change, although the present value of such benefit will change from year to year. The other NEOS are not Pension Plan participants and were never eligible for the Pension Plan.