Pros: - Only need to work 8 hours a day. - The company has enough resources to allow developers to experiment. In over 30 years of operation, it has never had a year of negative growth, so there is no "sink-or-swim" mandate. - The training program for non-CS entry-level hires is a great way to transition into software. - Teams are small and functional-focused, so developers get a lot of code ownership. - The company grows fast, so there are opportunities to move up. This must be taken with a grain of salt, since there are thousands of developers at the company, but many of the team leads have only worked there for 3-4 years, sometimes less. - Jumping between groups is highly encouraged, so even if you don't want to manage people, you can always try something new. The process is well-defined, so no need to go behind your manager's back. - Get to learn about the financial domain, which has a lot of interesting algorithmic, computational, mathematical, and big-data problems.

Cons: A lot of the technology is proprietary or old, making transitioning in or out of the company difficult. New technologies do show up, but it takes time, requires political navigation, and rarely has coverage across the whole company. Business managers often push back when developers try to invest in stability or code cleanup, which is obviously bad in the long-term.

Pros: Good perks, good work-life balance.

Cons: Politics, old tech, lack of vision and innovation.

Pros: Good training program for entry-level people. Quite a few smart people around. Great offices to work in: very attractive, good location, communal kitchen, lecture theatres, etc. The office in general feels quite busy and bustling. Lots of perks like free theatre/exhibition tickets, events, etc. Good amount of responsibility from early on. Good pay. Good name to have on the CV.

Cons: Lots of the codebase is pretty antiquated – Fortran code, old 1000-line C functions from the 1980s, etc. Lots of proprietary stuff you have to learn that isn't transferable, so you run the risk of getting a bit institutionalized. Also, Bloomberg often unnecessarily has its own little version of something (file I/O libraries, etc.). Senior management have their heads in the clouds and are fairly political. Many have been there since the dawn of time and have an outdated view of how the company works. They will push through initiatives that they have 'sold' to their superiors, even if they just don't make sense at ground level. One of those companies (and there are many) that sell themselves to applicants as having a 'flat' structure, when what this actually means is that hardly anyone ever gets moved up. There is also lots of bureaucracy and a culture of micromanagement – every working hour must be ticketed, accounted for, etc.