Pros: Miro is the first company in my career where I'm interested in participating in company-wide meetings. It is a startup with an established process, professional management, and intelligent engineers. Miro allows for work/life balance, provides opportunities for self-development, and offers competitive compensation and benefits.

Cons: Miro doesn't have options to work full remotely without relocation.

Pros: Ownership & Impact: Great tech challenges due to exceptional growth.

Cons: No cons for me in Miro.

Pros: Nice laptops, a few nice colleagues.

Cons: In short, a Russian company with offices abroad. Most of the relevant big and little bosses, even in Europe, are Russian, resulting in a highly hierarchical structure (even though they tell otherwise) and leaving little space for cultural diversity whatsoever. The nice culture they brag about quickly fades away, leaving in its place one of cherishing long working hours and sacrifice in the name of "our company." This is encouraged, resulting in a stressful routine and unfavorable work-life balance. Core values look good on paper, and people look the other way to facts that bring doubt upon them. Toxic culture: every man for himself, finger-pointing, and blaming. Lots of micromanagement and lack of autonomy. Ruthless, apathetic, mostly inexperienced, without charisma, mechanical, and hierarchical bosses. Not leaders. Don't expect modern concepts like servant leaders here; expect a tight hierarchy. Personal problems, no matter how serious they might be, WILL NOT be tolerated and might end up turning you into a problem to be solved. Don't expect sympathy or any sort of kindness from your bosses, HR, or whomever. They DO NOT seem to care. Bosses won't be clear about their expectations, areas where you should improve, how to get there, and other things you might expect from them. Expect feedback to be filled with lots and lots of "I don't know," stuttering, blaming, and raised voices. Feedback you give will be duly ignored with some empty sentence like "Yeah, yeah, true, we should look into that," no matter the context. Expect promises and deals to be broken or ignored. On the tech side: an unbearably bureaucratic decision-making process. Old-school development, no microservices, no Devops. You won't be involved in anything else than coding. Legacy and chaotic codebase lead to a lack of autonomy and a steady flow of hard-to-reproduce bugs that are even harder to fix without breaking something else or introducing new bugs equally hard to reproduce and to fix. Frontend and backend are both monolithic applications, stored each of them in its own huge single repository, making merges and releases stressful. Because of that, there's no room for innovation. If upgrading libraries can be a problem, testing new components or services will cause endless discussions. Lack of Devops culture leads to a high level of dependency on the infrastructure team, as others have no access whatsoever to any environments. Product area keeps shoving down new features to be always delivered ASAP. Those get built by patching and hacking old code. So, there's very little room to address the huge list of existing tech debt.