Experience in Ultragenyx - Scientist II Ultragenyx Employee Review

4.0
Dec 28, 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Collaborative environment, clear directional guidance

Cons

Difficult to change direction once a decision is made

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1y
Thank you for your positive review and for being a part of our team! We love hearing your pros – these are important values at Ultragenyx and we are glad they are coming through in your experience. We hope that you feel comfortable speaking with your manager about decision-making and flexibility when needed. One of our main values is to be dynamic and we want to make sure that is also part of your experience. If you like, you can also reach out to our Employee Relations team at EmployeeRelations@ultragenyx.com to share any specific feedback. Thank you once again, we appreciate you!

Explore other reviews about Ultragenyx

5.0
May 12, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great place with great people who are all pulling toward a common goal of bringing therapies to market that will change people's lives

Cons

For a small company, decisions can take a while to make because everyone wants to be involved, and most people in centralized roles work across all of the different brands within the company.

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1mo
Thank you for your review and thoughtful feedback. We’re proud of the passion our teams bring to advancing therapies for patients, and we appreciate you sharing your perspective on how we work together. We’re glad to have you with us!
3.0
Jul 18, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good benefits and generally reasonable work-life balance.

Cons

In my experience, the organization had many layers of leadership (many VPs, Sr Directors and Directors), unclear decision-making authority, and frequently changing priorities, which sometimes slowed progress and weakened accountability. Considerable time was devoted to meetings, presentations, and strategy, but these activities did not always translate into measurable scientific outcomes. Hands-on scientists often appeared to have limited influence over technical decisions. Leadership also seemed to favor established hypotheses, outsourcing, and new biology-focused pilot studies over investing in innovative platform technologies that could address multiple diseases. Alternative perspectives and technical concerns did not always receive sufficient consideration. Career advancement appeared more accessible to highly visible employees with strong networking and presentation skills than to those contributing primarily through laboratory and technical work. While the benefits and work-life balance were positive, I would have valued clearer priorities, greater scientific openness, and stronger support for hands-on contributors.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All