The wealth gap fundamentally comes down to longevity and negotiating power at different career stages. Streep didn't just earn more per film—she earned MORE FILMS, period. While Hoffman's career peaked in the mid-2000s at $10M+ per picture, Streep was still commanding $20M+ deals well into her 70s. That's not just inflation; that's sustained A-tier demand across five decades. Hoffman's four-decade career sounds longer on paper, but the peak earning years compressed into roughly 2000-2014, whereas Streep's peak stretched from the 1980s through the 2010s—essentially double the runway.

Career diversification also played a massive role. Streep strategically mixed high-paying studio films (Mamma Mia!, Into the Woods) with prestige dramas that kept her culturally relevant and bankable. This dual-track approach meant she could command premium rates from both commercial and art-house producers simultaneously. Hoffman, despite his Oscar pedigree and critical respect, seemed more locked into the prestige-drama lane—which pays well but doesn't have the same multiplier effect as being the rare actor who can open both a $100M tentpole AND a $15M character study.

Timing and health also matter grimly here. Hoffman's death at 46 essentially froze his earning potential mid-stride, right when actors typically transition into elder-statesman roles (see: Streep's post-60 power moves). If Hoffman had lived to 70+ and maintained even modest $5-8M annual paydays, his estate could easily have doubled or tripled. Streep's ability to work into her 70s and 80s—and her willingness to take on diverse projects that kept her in demand—created a compounding wealth effect that Hoffman simply never had the opportunity to achieve.