Pros: Nice benefits, especially if you like to travel. Chill office culture; there's very rarely a feeling that you're under pressure to complete something. Developers are professional and good to work with. Completely flat structure of the IT department, meaning every developer is pretty much equal and allowed to design features and make technical decisions. The success of a feature is determined by the results of A/B testing. So you can pretty much work on anything, and no one will tell you that your idea is wrong, especially if it's successful on metrics. This is great if you are full of ideas and feel that management won't let you run with them.

Cons: Other side of the same things. A flat department structure means there's absolutely no plan and no control. Everyone can quietly implement a feature that doesn't fit with the rest of the code. On the other hand, if they get noticed, they are immediately harassed by every other peer developer who has something to say. Getting people to agree on anything is practically impossible, because there's no authority and someone always has an opinion against it. Every code change has to run through time-consuming A/B testing, which creates huge technical debt and makes it really difficult to deal with. All of this is viewed as a feature, not a bug; the company actually hires even more developers to run as many features as possible.

Pros: Beautiful office, good location, diversity.

Cons: Outdated tech stack, management is poor.

Pros: Salary, office, Amsterdam, and a lot of smart and friendly people from all over the world.

Cons: It all depends on your team. Some teams are really nice, but most teams work on super boring and uninteresting stuff with horribly low-quality code. Some teams are super toxic, and this is allowed by bad, inexperienced, and unethical management. Everything related to ethics and code of conduct is only for marketing. We have to spend hours watching mandatory compliance training. However, I was a victim of harassment, defamation, and then retaliation when reported (the author was friends with our manager), and HR and compliance sided with the manager, removing conversations from our communication tool that I pointed to as proof of defamation. It took three months to finish their "investigation," and in the end, they did nothing. The bully and the manager got promoted less than a year following my report. Performance evaluation, be it a good score or a bad score, promotions, and sanctions are mostly about politics. It is a place where it is not safe to speak your mind, as you are risking retaliation. Your compensation depends on your performance score. The process is really bad with no clear expectations; it is all vague and subjective. At the end of the day, it is just a forced ranking in disguise, where 70%++ of people will get an average score and cannot be promoted for at least one year without any concrete reasons given; that is just the default score.