Cons outweighs the Pros - Anonymous employee Ultragenyx Employee Review

2.0
Mar 26, 2025
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Allows for fully remote, some nice and motivated people, benefits and compensations are mid-range.

Cons

Many team members are overworked. Consistent scope change and leadership does not seem to care that the timelines are overly aggressive causing bad morale on the team. Lots of incompetent people not experienced to be managers. Favoritism amongst groups. Probably one of the worst companies I've worked for.

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1y
We thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. As a values-driven company, we very much value the feedback of our employees. We are disappointed to hear you don't feel that honesty and feedback are taken seriously. If you would like to discuss any details about your time at Ultragenyx, feel free to reach out to our Employee Relations team at EmployeeRelations@ultragenyx.com. We wish you well in your future endeavors!

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