Pros: - The team: Iso is a place with extremely smart, extremely modest, extremely kind, extremely motivated, and extremely inspiring people. - The ambitious mission: the prospect of doing something so meaningful with the fruits of our work dangling in close reach is extremely motivating to me. - The work atmosphere: my supportive team, all the fun events and moments we share together, and the great care that is taken of us by our people ops and office ops team. Great care is taken of good work conditions and a good work-life balance. - The tech: our techops and mlops team is world class and unheard of. I have never been in a place with such a responsive and knowledgeable infrastructure team.

Cons: - We are a startup that is quite fast-moving, and things are iterated on at a whirlwind speed. Not everything is perfect yet, and we count on every one of us to make our products as great as possible.

Pros: - Ambitious mission and high-level future plans. - Decent comp. - Top talent. - Hierarchy that is nearly flat, and colleagues who are mostly very approachable. - Cross-functional environment with a number of opportunities to learn more about drug discovery and its foundations in chemistry and molecular biology. - Company that secured massive funding and has top-tier partners in big pharma.

Cons: - Unclear career progression; no formal promotion process. Occasionally individuals get promoted for good work, but the bar for the next level isn't clear. - Sudden group dismissals; you can get out of the company within 1 day if someone in the management decided so. - "Volunteering-based engineering culture" means that you may be expected to work on things other teams don't want to. - Significant effort is spent on maintenance of internal services which multiple teams contribute to, as some prefer a "move fast, break things" approach in production environments and don't care much about dependencies. As a result, outages of various services happen every 2-4 weeks. - Work-life balance isn't great in the company in general, as people tend to work long hours and weekends to meet their deadlines (less the case for the engineering teams, but pretty much a norm for chemistry/biology teams). - People at the director's level and above don't seem to have a coherent vision for the tech part of the company. Many critical architecture decisions are taken by individual engineers/teams, and they don't necessarily take other teams into account. - CEO seems to be extremely busy with other Alphabet stuff, rarely in the office, and appears once a quarter at town halls.

Pros: Impactful problems and a world-class team

Cons: Mild startup growing pains, but that is really quite minimal.