Pros: The elephant in the (chat)room is the question of “does this have upside to make me rich? I mean, like, private-island rich, not just private-peninsula rich.” Don’t read this review if you hate money. Otherwise, let me address this, from an engineer’s perspective: * phenomenally good business to be in; excellent upside * automates expensive humans; not just an incremental improvement to something that’s already being done in software * barrier to entry for smaller firms: you need critical mass for customers to trust you (unlike, say, with online games) * barrier to entry for large non-investment (software) firms: it’s specialized and business-y enough that e.g. Google can’t just enter the space (unlike, say, online maps or self-driving cars, which are huge engineering problems) * barrier to entry for large investment firms: they can’t move as fast, and quite frankly, Silicon Valley talent is unlikely to want to work there (same reason why engineering talent is probably better at Google than at e.g. some large car company). Also, they’re in the tough spot of having to cannibalize their own (non-automated) investment advisory business. * not very susceptible to an economic downturn. This isn’t the case for many companies who e.g. sell software and get hit when corporate budgets are axed all around. * some of what we do (especially tax optimization) just can’t be done accurately by humans - some tasks are just too big/complex/geared towards computers. So we’re not just cheaper, but also better. * startup-y enough to have a lot of upside (and excitement); mature enough to not have to work crazy hours and eat ramen. (However, do note that the office has lots of free drinks and food, including ramen noodles. Nothing against ramen here). * phenomenally good executive team. Yes, “About Us” pages look very good on all companies, so you wouldn’t know. But trust me. In particular, our executive chairman, Andy Rachleff, is Silicon Valley royalty. I’ve been told top 25. I’d say he’s the next step down from the household-name VCs (Andreessen, Khosla, etc) - think Robert Downey Jr instead of Brad Pitt. Why does this matter? Well, his knowledge and connections are out of this world, and it’s helped the company many times (e.g. to get deals, visibility with other big companies and media, etc.) Finally: yes, we do intend to make money, but there’s clear social value in that we benefit people in very meaningful (i.e. not share-your-cat-pictures-with-your-friends) ways: * those with little $ (below most advisors’ minimums of ~ $250k) are otherwise completely unserved * those with more $ are otherwise overcharged (~4x) for an inferior service

Cons: Since my 'pros' section talked mostly about the business, I'll do the same thing here: * What if some big company tries to spend crazy money and wipe us out of existence? I'm not worried because we have a huge lead and we can run faster than the big guys. It's like me having to compete in a marathon against the NYC marathon winner – who is also given a head start. (To be clear, the marathon runner in this analogy is Wealthfront, not me; I'm not big on cardio). But again, you never know. * Lots of interviewing. I actually rather like the opportunity to bore candidates with my sales pitch on the company, but some people may find interviewing to be a nuisance. * What happens if the market tanks? I personally don't think that the tide for doing this online will ever turn, but you never know. Worst case, we'll pivot into an online mattress seller for people to put their money under.

Pros: Working at [Financial Company Name] is good.

Cons: I don't find any difficulties while working at Wealthfront.

Pros: Great career opportunity. It's the leader in its space and it's quite a unique niche for a startup to be in; not many companies are trying to solve the automated investing problem. You get to invest up to 250K for free for employees! Technology problems that you deal with are also pretty decent, although management can do better in ensuring all employees are equally effective and challenged, but it's getting there. Culture is very, very collaborative. You can walk up and talk to anyone, even the CEO or chairman. The CEO is very nice and has a great personality (my favorite person in the entire management team). All the engineers are also good people to work with, very helpful in terms of getting new members up to speed. Benefits are getting better. The snacks are getting better. There will also be free food coming soon. We get cards for Starbucks, Pete's, David's Tea, Fraiche, Yogurtland, Cafe Venetia, and some ice cream place, and it's all corp expensed. Awesome location, so close to all the great places to eat in Palo Alto. Don't ever feel bored or caged in at work; you can go out for a walk every couple of hours.

Cons: Wealthfront is growing very, very fast. Even the processes that are put into place are so that it can eventually scale up to a large number of people. Because of this, it's becoming less and less "startupy." It still has agile development practices, but the rapid growth and the need for clear processes can get a little challenging. Compensation isn't the greatest. They do try to underball you and then don't really negotiate. However, if you are in it for the long run and really believe in the company, then the stocks should make up for it. If you do want to excel, you will have to give it 110%. So, if you are looking for a chill career, don't consider Wealthfront.