John Marshall Bancorp, Inc.

The goal of our executive compensation program is to attract and retain highly skilled and motivated executive officers who will significantly contribute to the Company’s success. The executive officers are expected to grow and manage the Company and to increase shareholder value while mitigating risk. Thus, the compensation program is designed to provide levels of compensation that reflect each executive’s role in the Company and reward the executive’s performance in light of the overall performance of the Company.

The Compensation Committee (hereafter referred to as the “Committee”) annually evaluates the performance of the Chief Executive Officer based on our financial performance versus budget, achievements in implementing our long-term strategy, our financial performance relative to comparable asset size peer institutions and the personal observations of the Chief Executive Officer’s performance by the members of the Committee and Board of Directors.

The 2025 compensation peer group contained 57 similarly-sized, publicly traded banks, including the Company. The Committee analyzed eleven Key Performance Indicators (“KPI”) addressing asset quality, capitalization, financial performance, growth and stock price valuation. The Company was ranked among the peers within each KPI and an average of all the KPIs was calculated to determine the Company’s composite ranking among peers. Each of the KPIs received equal weighting in calculating the composite ranking. The Company’s composite peer ranking was converted to a performance percentile.

The Committee used the performance percentile to benchmark the Chief Executive Officer’s total compensation. An aging factor adjustment and a cost of labor geographic differential, where applicable, were applied to each peer’s

publicly available prior year (2024) compensation data to arrive at the adjusted peer compensation data. The Committee retained the services of Pearl Meyer to assess the appropriateness of the peer group and provide both the aging factor adjustment and the cost of labor geographic differential. Pearl Meyer deemed the peer group both reasonable and defensible given the analysis objectives.

In determining the Chief Executive Officer’s total compensation for 2025, the Committee concluded that his compensation percentile was commensurate with the Company’s performance percentile. For other executive officers, the Committee reviews with the Chief Executive Officer the performance evaluations for those executive officers, along with competitive compensation data for the Company’s peers.