Seeing the forum we are on I would assume most members make more from active income than passive income as most would probably be FIRE at that point.
+1. If you get to the point where you're making more from passive than active, then you're likely past FIRE (considering in FIRE you only need to cover expenses, not income--and, of course, I can think of exceptions, but in the vast majority of cases, especially for people here).
The OP though asked one question in the title, then gave different assumptions in the post. This lead to confusion in several responses.
Your response addressed the titular question.
In the post, the question became "if your portfolio earned 10%, would you make more money from that, or from your job?"
It is possible to make more money from your portfolio than your job, but not be FIRE yet, due to the 4% rule being lower than the OP's 10% assumption. So there would be a narrow band of individuals who are close to FIRE, but not yet, that this would apply to.
E.g. say you spend 40k/yr, so you need a stache of 1MM at a 4% WR. Say you earn $X/yr. Any stache amount between 10*X and 1MM would qualify you for this (to put real numbers on it, to have that make sense if the X didn't click, say you make 70k.. any stache amount between 700k and 1MM would earn you more than 70k at a 10% return, but you wouldn't be FIRE yet).
So in essence, the OP's titular question depends on passive forms of income.
The question he seems to want to be asking from the main post is... is your stache at least 10 times the amount you make at your job?
Any stache amount > 10x their job amount, at a 10% return assumption will put them in the camp of making more from what the OP calls "passive" income (market gains) than from their job. They may, or may not be FIRE'd yet, if that amount is > 25x their spending (a number unrelated to that income amount).
That seems to be about as simple as I can make what the OP is going for: Who has a portfolio at least 10x their income?
:)