Pros
Smart, hardworking peers at the individual contributor level
Cons
Throughout my time spent here, one pattern defined the experience: middle management would set a direction, teams would commit real work and real client promises to it, and then the senior leadership would steer things somewhere else entirely. What you were told on Monday rarely survived to Friday. The CEO was also largely absent day to day. Decisions that affected entire teams were made with little visibility into how or by whom, and there was almost no direct access to the executive making them. The cost was real: wasted effort, missed commitments, and a steady erosion of trust. You cannot plan, you cannot deliver, and eventually you stop believing anything leadership says. Ideas get sold internally and to clients, then quietly abandoned with no one accountable for the gap. Roles were also poorly defined. Engineers routinely carried account-management responsibilities that should have sat with dedicated staff, and the lines between business functions were never properly drawn. The more senior you became, the more of this you absorbed. Growth in the role meant inheriting other people's job descriptions rather than deepening your own. The turnover speaks for itself. Over my time here, I watched a steady stream of capable people decide it wasn't worth staying, and when good people leave that consistently, it's not a coincidence, it's a verdict. I raised concerns about practices I believed were improper. I was laid off shortly after. I'll let the timing speak for itself. I did work here I was genuinely proud of, and the clearest sign of how things ended is that I chose to leave those years off my resume rather than risk how they might be characterized by the very leaders who failed us. Prospective employees should weigh carefully how this company treats people who ask uncomfortable questions, and how it speaks of them once they're gone.
