Objectives Research on the relationship between teaching productivity and base salary is sparse, but tends to find no association. However, the research is based largely on student evaluations (student evaluation of teaching (SET)). No study uses peer review of teaching, which may capture qualities of excellence in teaching missed by SETs. The present study addresses this gap. Methods Data refer to all 70 faculty in the social sciences at a Carnegie research‐extensive university. Measures of teaching include peer‐review scores, student evaluations, and teaching awards. Controls are incorporated for other predictors of base salary, including research productivity, years of experience, service, and demographics. Results Controlling for the other variables, peer review of teaching was unrelated to base salary. However, each year of experience enhanced salary by $905, each book was associated with $2,309 in salary, and membership in the economics department enhanced salary by $23,076. The full model explained 84 percent of the variation in base salaries. Conclusion Peer review of teaching was no better a predictor of salary than SETs. While excellence in teaching is often believed to affect base salary, the present analysis finds no evidence that this is the case. Future work is needed to assess the association in other organizational contexts.