Pros: Arista has a good work-life balance with flexible hours, and they just started matching 401k contributions. The products are more reliable than their competitors', and Arista employs a comprehensive automatic unit-testing system that is unlike anything the competition has.

Cons: During interviews, Arista proudly touts that every employee is afforded time to do interesting work, with teams employing rotating job schedules in which every employee takes turns at the interesting aspects of software engineering and the not-so-interesting aspects of software engineering. What actually happens is that team managers come up with multiple ways to describe bug-fixing and rotate the same two to three employees through different "projects" that are all the same maintenance work. If you're not one of these two to three employees, you might enjoy working on interesting projects and learning new things. At Arista, bonuses and raises are determined by the "A-review/peer-bonus" system, in which every employee rates their colleagues based on their perceived contributions to the company. Naturally, this tends to favor the same employees who are getting the interesting projects, since nobody cares about fixing bugs. If you don't get a good A-review, then you aren't getting any bonuses or raises that year. So, you can waste your life away by working hard and cleaning up other people's bugs, and maybe after a couple of years, you might get slotted into a project visible enough that your coworkers might notice what you're doing and you might get a peer-bonus or something. Alternatively, you can fill out a job application at one of Arista's many competitors and get a much larger pay-hike now.

Pros: Quality is number 1. If there is a bug, that gets fixed over new code. Refactoring is encouraged. Manager BS is basically non-existent. Agile is not forced on us, and teams / individuals operate independently (ironically more agile than SCRUM or whatever). Engineering managers are hired only from within, so managers are all talented software engineers. Internal review process is algorithmic, and managers don't get to play favorites (at least, compared to other companies). The CTO Ken Duda is really great. The engineering org, and largely the company as a whole, is dependent on his great vision and his devotion to quality. In general, the work is not demanding. It's a best effort kind of place. Those who want to excel can, but there is no constant drive to improve. Customer support is first class - TAC are a joy to work with.

Cons: Growing pains have led to less focused management and a more chaotic environment. A lack of product managers means direction is sometimes not clear. While the review process is algorithmic, it's still very opaque. Specifically, pay scales are non-existent, and the diversity of compensation seems wide. Four-year RSU vesting is infrequent, and it means that they don't dollar-cost average the total compensation. This can vary a lot. Very little attention is paid to external benefits. Paternity leave, for example, is the legal minimum. Compensation is great and all, but there is more to life than dollars in the bank. The HR department does not make active attempts to improve things; all improvements I know of come from the engineering organization pushing for them. Leadership, excluding engineering, seems to make decisions that are at odds with the company "values," like "Do the right thing." They often dodge difficult questions.

Pros: One of the best places to work. So much to learn if you really like networking. Peters are very knowledgeable and helpful. Learning curve is steep.

Cons: Perks are less compared to other companies. Also, salary hikes and bonuses are not up to the mark.