Ask HN: Accept better position or better company?
I'm trying to decide between 2 offers. One is a better position - I would be running a small team doing some cool tech, but I'm not so sure about the company.
The other is a worse position - I would be the equivalent of ON the team, not running it, but the company is "better" (better investors, people seem smarter, are closer to market).
Assume I'm making competitive compensation in both places (so the first place is less cash, more equity). Which job do you take and why?
15 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 38.9 ms ] threadThat said... we wouldn't have Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc. if everyone followed that advice.
Which boss do you like more?
This is a great point. No one might care if I have a big shot title at a company no one has ever heard of.
> Which boss do you like more?
The guy at the 'better' company seems kinder and has more experience. The smaller company guy is younger and less experienced and tougher. Probably would be "easier" to work for the former, but I don't know if I would develop as much professionally.
In general when I'm making these decisions it always comes down to which group of people I like better regardless of the technology stack.
Also, just in general, since you mentioned "less cash, more equity". More equity shouldn't be considered a balance to earning less cash in evaluating a job offer. Equity has an expected value based on probability of success. For startup employee equity I've heard people use an EV of ~$0.00 as safe rule of thumb. I'm not a fan of that approach but at the very least "more equity" at the worse of two companies is often worth less or worthless. Up to you how much this matters, if at all.
Hard to answer this with info provided, but I wouldn't take either at this point unless you have to. Kick the can on the offers or get more info from each company that will help you decide.
Good point re: equity, I was trying to say compensation is competitive for both situations.