Pros: Good product. One of Europe's leading AI companies. Decent benefits.

Cons: Intransparent leadership, starting with hidden salary bands, continuing with top down decisions that have no room for any feedback or concerns, and finishing with absolutely no transparency when it comes to possible future plans with the company. High employee churn rate with repeated attempts to downsize. Company barely tries to keep its employees, let alone promote them.

Pros: A lot of talented staff, a generally really good standard of engineering, and heavy adoption into AI tooling to help with day-to-day tasks.

Cons: In my experience, certain teams operated in an extremely siloed manner. It felt as though some individuals actively guarded their knowledge rather than sharing it, which in my view ran completely counter to what it means to be a team player. Over time, I felt this contributed to a toxic working environment that seemed to reward isolation over collaboration. With the majority of roles being fully remote, I think this made the problem considerably worse rather than better. From where I was sitting, the business strategy also felt increasingly unclear. The company had historically held a strong lead in language translation, but in my opinion it struggled to respond effectively as competitors closed the gap. Rather than doubling down on that strength, the decision was made to pivot towards Agentic AI, a space already dominated by much larger players with far greater resources. What struck me most about that pivot was how it was positioned internally. We were told that the agentic product was going to be the vehicle for significant company growth, with the clear implication that language translation could no longer deliver that. Yet, after roughly a year, the agentic product was cancelled. My sense was that confidence in producing a truly compelling product had simply evaporated. What I found difficult to reconcile was that the company had, in my view, publicly walked away from its belief in language translation, then abandoned the thing meant to replace it, all without any clear plan for what came next. It left me feeling that the business could comfortably coast along but had no realistic path to the kind of rapid growth it had once achieved. Management was, in my experience, quite mixed. Some managers were genuinely excellent, but others I felt were not effectively addressing poor behaviours or performance issues within their teams. A particular concern for me was what I perceived as strong confirmation bias in some newer managers. It seemed to me as though they had formed their views and conclusions from conversations with previous managers, rather than taking the time to observe, gather their own evidence and reach their own judgements. On the subject of remote working, I personally felt that having so many people on remote contracts made it even more important to actively break down silos and foster a genuine team culture. In my view, the opposite seemed to happen. Many people appeared to have little interest in collaboration, seemingly preferring to work in near-total isolation with minimal contact. On the occasions when some of these individuals did join a call, I often found it a frustrating experience. There were times when I'd be on a call for half an hour or more, walking someone through a problem, only to get the impression they were multitasking throughout. You'd assume they were following along until you asked a direct question and were met with something along the lines of "sorry, could you repeat that?" It was a pattern I encountered more than once. What I found particularly disheartening was the contrast between how some colleagues presented themselves in larger group settings versus how they actually behaved day to day. In meetings, they would raise thoughtful points and speak persuasively about improving team culture and ways of working. In practice, from my perspective, their behaviour was often the complete opposite. Classic talk the talk, don't walk the walk. Finally, in light of the recent round of redundancies, I'm personally not surprised by where things have landed. My honest view is that the executive team needs to take a long, hard look at the business strategy. From where I stood, there was a lot of uncertainty at the top, and without a clear and credible direction, it's difficult to see how the company moves forward with any real confidence.

Pros: A product that millions use daily

Cons: The leadership is not empathetic at all.