I got a job at both Meta and Google. The more stressful company was actually the best to work at.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Ritendra Datta, a software engineer based in the San Francisco Bay Area. It's been edited for length and clarity.

I worked at Google from 2010 to 2019, then transitioned to Meta for just over four years.

If I look at it strictly from an engineering perspective, my first few years at Google were the best in my career. The company felt extremely mission-driven, and I was inspired as a builder.

Datta worked at two Google offices and Meta's Silicon Valley location. Photo courtesy of Ritendra Datta

At Meta, I worked more hours and experienced higher stress levels, but not necessarily in a bad way. In fact, working for Meta was a better experience overall than working at Google.

I loved Google, but I saw the company culture change

My early years at Google had a rare mix of being well-funded and feeling driven by a mission, not profit. Google was slow, steady, and careful with everything it rolled out. I knew the ins and outs of everything my team was working on.

I spent my first four years working out of the Google Pittsburgh office, where we had foosball tables, food options, and areas to hang out. No one cared if I spent an hour or two just jamming out with colleagues in the music room, and I loved it.

I think the company was betting that very inspired, well-intentioned engineers would build awesome things regardless of whether they worked 10 hours or four.

Google felt completely different when I transitioned to the Mountain View office

I switched to the Google Mountain View office because I was tired of East Coast winters and figured there'd be more opportunities. That location had amenities like lap pools and volleyball courts, but people seemed more heads down and focused on work. I think it was partially due to differences between the East Coast and Silicon Valley, and partially due to a cultural shift within the company toward beating out the competition.

After nearly a decade, I started to feel complacent. I was repeating the same tasks, collaborating with the same people, and no longer learning. I ultimately left Google and accepted an offer with Meta in 2019 because of a pay increase and the hopes of growing as an engineer.

I started working at Meta and immediately felt the difference

Meta's motto at the time of my hiring was "move fast and break things," and I felt it immediately. The second I felt like I understood something, they'd say, "Let's pivot, let's drop this, let's switch priorities." We failed often, but the amount we innovated outweighed it.

I felt good stress when we hustled to build a compelling product, and our motivation was clear. On the other hand, I felt bad stress when I didn't understand the motivation behind certain strategic shifts and would have to rally my team behind a strict timeline that I didn't even understand.

I think many people who come from Google don't ever really adjust to that change, but I think I adapted well.

I experienced burnout at both companies, in completely different ways

Somewhere around the middle of my career at Google, I started worrying I was falling behind. On the outside, it looked like I had an illustrious career, but what people don't see are the patches of very slow progress and extreme frustration. The pressure I felt to progress in my career burned me out.

The burnout I had at Meta was for moral reasons. In 2021, Meta was under scrutiny when a whistleblower presented scathing documents about the hate speech and misinformation that Meta allowed. This made me question whether I was fighting the right fight and building a better society.

I had a lot of doubts about my career and didn't even want to go to work despite having a big team to run.

Promotions worked differently at Google and Meta

The promotion process at Google felt fair, but it became more competitive, especially after I moved to the Mountain View office. I would create a promotion packet with my manager, and then a totally independent set of senior leadership would review it.

At Meta, the people who decided my promotion were either in or peripheral to my organization. Plus, it wasn't just important to do good work, but you also had to market your work.

We had an internal version of Facebook where people would post about their accomplishments, which caused a lot of competition. I became keenly aware of my team's visibility because marketing our work was just as important as doing it.

I developed a muscle of constantly thinking about visibility, and I don't think it was in a good way.

Meta shuts down jerky behavior more than Google

The feedback process was very strong at Meta. Everyone gave feedback on everyone, and if one person was a big jerk, their career would likely be affected by it.

Additionally, everyone's engineering levels were hidden except for some pivotal employees, like a director or VP, so there was no definitive hierarchy.

At Google, the emphasis was less on how well you collaborated and more on the technical work you did. People were very public about their level, meaning they might leverage their higher status to override decisions.

I preferred Meta over Google

My early years at Google were amazing. But when I consider influence, impact, and monetary gain, Meta was overall the best.

Despite this, I quit Meta in 2023 and accepted an offer for a role at a startup. I'm happy where I'm at now, but I truly believe both companies can be amazing places to work.

If you work in Big Tech and have a story you would like to share, please email the editor, Manseen Logan, at [email protected].