Comparator is a simple, free, open-source tool to help you cut through the complexity of startup compensation. Quickly see what your equity might actually be worth, factor in dilution, and easily compare your offers side by side. It’s completely free, no signups, your data never leaves the browser.
Check out the app here: https://comparator-one.vercel.app
Check out the code here: https://github.com/DevonPeroutky/comparator
Zero. Equity is a bonus in case things work out. But for the purpose of deciding on offers - zero.
Obviously it’s a crapshoot and should never be seen as a guarantee, I think treating it as zero is bit too far on the opposite extreme.
Seems far more likely that startup equity will be worth zero to typical individual contributor employees, not millions
I guess I didn’t think “routinely” implied a specific percentage, just that it isn’t uncommon for options to be worth a lot.
If even 5–10% of VC startups succeed, then it’s still worth considering the expected value of the equity when comparing job offers.
You're deluding yourself here. On average, the vast, vast majority of equity options, _especially_ in the VC backed tech world, turn out to nothing for the employee.
You literally built a tool because there's so many variables, and in the majority of cases, all these variables do not align in a way that results in a payment.
This is almost the literal definition of "uncommon". It is uncommon for options to materialise into a large amount of value for employees.
I respect your tool, and I respect what you're doing. But you need to be honest with yourself and the rest of the world. If you want to help young or new people in this area, then don't perpetuate the myth that startup tech company options are statistically any better than a lottery ticket.
Even when I had multiple startup offers, "Likelihood of becoming rich" was only one column in a 13 column ranking. I ranked them in sorted order on each column, added up their ranks across columns, and accepted the one with the lowest sum of ranks. I have done this for every of my jobs and it's fine. I add or change columns each time. It has led me (eventually) to my current job which is far and away my favorite.
I kept former offers in the ranking as well, as a sort of "secretary problem" running solution.
IANAL, the above isn’t legal advice, yada yada.
We pulled an offer we made because one of our candidates apparently had already accepted an earlier offer from another startup.
Most don't extend employment offers out for months in my experience, or at least they really try to get you to agree off the bat. I imagine someone job searching is getting an interview once a week or so. Several times, I've had delays of weeks to months after just submitting an application to get the interview. So how do you just have multiple offers to juggle at any one time?
For my part, I have hundreds of other candidates to choose from.
People like you are the ones who grumble that it's hard to find good employees, or have to deal with "bad hires". I've built up and staffed teams for a long time and I understand that the best employees sometimes need flexibility. Because the good ones are all going and working for people who want to treat them like adults and understand that the person doing the hiring is just as disposable as the people attempting to be hired.
If timelines don't line up, you just say they don't line up and go your separate ways. No harm no foul.
And that's fine for some people who are just "passing through" with no concept of ownership of anything. A lot of people probably.
But you're also going to miss out on people that take extreme ownership of success and failure that have really dedicated themselves to various crafts over their life and career.
You will never, ever, ever get the performance and gains by hiring a cog compared to hiring a craftsman.
Just depends on the org priorities.
But I will say, we were also careful to accommodate candidate schedules as much as possible, but yes, we did pass on folks who were asking for significantly more than others. It's a balancing game.
Sounds like you're not there anymore, but Thank You.
It's kind of like how when selling a house your optimal strategy is rarely to try to appeal to the most people. Instead, modifications which greatly increase perceived value in a smaller subset (so long as it isn't too small for your personal goals) will alienate most customers but still increase the sale value in the same timespan.
When you're applying for jobs, some companies aren't willing to play that game, and if you're playing it then that's not just fine; it's ideal. You don't waste your time on companies who won't play ball. Enough will that the strategy still works.
If you've kept up in the AI space the demand is insane. Though, ironically, I ended up taking a classical statistical modeling position because the team seemed great (and I can't resist a good, non-trivial modeling problem).
Loved the initial loading animation. You should also launch this on Peerlist Launchpad, many devs gonna love it.