I see so many posts where people are quoting it as average tech company. Considering scale, there should be good complex challenges to solve? Where is the gap?
The way I see it is the average talent at FAANG, is definitely better than average talent at Wmt. But the best of these companies may still be better than the lower half of FAANG. I interviewed with couple of FAANG’s and got one offer too, but I felt the interviewers from Wmt were on par if not smarter than the others. This is ofcourse because I had team specific interviews at Wmt. And these companies do match/exceed comp for the right candidate.
First hand experience (FAANG to WMT now back to FAANG) is: - worse pay - worse perks and benefit - the legacy stores Bentonville culture permeates, everyday low prices = you don’t get shit cause our margins are shit - growth / innovation via acquisition leading to high turn over, high culture clash, duplication of effort - as with any large organization, but especially for Walmart there is just so much leadership churn and so you’re team / director is realigning metrics every 4 months - lack of diversity, All Indian and East Asian engineers (this isn’t the worse thing, but when 95% of the company is like that the culture is a bit of a turn off) The average person is great and smart, but when you look at a FAANG the sum is greater than the parts, but at Walmart did not think it was the case. Low margin business means people have to be cheap so you don’t see all the pay and benefits you see at FAANG.
If "scale" was equal to tech reputation, then government contractors would be more reputable than elite unicorns. let me tell what actually equals tech reputation: it starts with T and ends with C.