Pros: A good company with nice people.

Cons: Bad vibes but nice people.

Pros: Good culture around taking responsibility for your work, while having a no-blame attitude for major problems, like "incidents". If you can find the right team that matches what you want, you'll thrive. Otherwise, you may struggle with bureaucracy.

Cons: Comp reviews are done without any input from the employee. Performance reviews, decoupled from compensation, don't feel impactful. On a scale from 1-5 where 5 is beyond expectations, 5 isn't actually an option because the higher-ups don't want those to be given out. In fact, a lot of decisions from higher-ups impact the culture negatively. They make decisions that are better handled by team leads and managers (people regular employees actually work with, talk to, and know). The theme of management is having a lax policy, then slowly killing it without clarity or communication. Promotions also happen without employee input. Hybrid policy, which used to be unclear, is now mandated from above and tracked by badge swipes. "Unlimited" PTO is not so anymore. In the US, it is tracked to be no more than some "average" they got of 15-25 days, up to manager discretion, but after 25, they're told to decline additional. KPIs are made just to satisfy executives that don't have the best context for the teams that have to write them. Almost a third of the team I'm on are managers of some sort.

Pros: Most employees are genuinely nice, smart, and collaborative. People are talented and generally easy to work with. The company offers free catered lunch every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, unlimited snacks and drinks, and vending machines where you can even get chargers, keyboards, and other electronic devices for free. The office is spacious, bright, and has an amazing view. The overall design and multimedia equipment are very new and modern.

Cons: There are a few people on the team who pretend to be supportive and offer to help new hires, but actually give misleading guidance. Once you follow their advice and something goes wrong, they completely deny what they said and use that as evidence to attack you. The management chain is very opaque. When false accusations happen, people higher up (including skip-levels) do not verify facts but choose to believe whatever they hear, making baseless assumptions without knowing the situation. Some experienced engineers are arrogant. They leave harsh comments on docs and PRs without understanding the full context, which gives newcomers the illusion that they did something wrong. In reality, it’s a form of gaslighting. When you calmly show evidence and explain your reasoning, they simply refuse to admit their own mistakes out of pride.