Which is a better organisation to work for, Google or Meta?
Drawing on his six years of experience at Google, a Meta product manager also working in a similar capacity disclosed several distinctions between the major firms.
From 2018 to 2022, Daniel McKinnon worked for Meta as a product manager. After working for two years at Google, he left to return to Meta in February to continue developing the
Ray-Ban AI spectacles.
Although the organisations may appear comparable, McKinnon stated on his personal blog that potential employees should be aware of certain significant distinctions between the two, including pay and work-life balance.
McKinnon stated that “growth at the expense of stress and pressure, Meta is probably a better fit.” “Meta and Google are both phenomenal technology companies where great PMs can thrive,” McKinnon added.
“If you want to prioritise work-life balance, stability, and job security, Google could be a great place for you,” he wrote.
A request for comment from a Meta representative was not answered.
These are some of the variations, per McKinnon.
Compensation
Product managers at Meta and Google receive salaries, bonuses, and grants for restricted stock units, but their pay systems differ, according to McKinnon.
Meta distributes its RSUs equitably across four years, according to McKinnon, but Google frontloader its grants, providing 70% of the shares within the first two years of employment.
Overall, he noted, the company’s far smaller stock refreshers than Meta may mean that the “typical Google employee” earns less annually. To encourage employees to stay with the company, some employers offer stock refreshers, which are effectively more shares after the initial grant.
“Refreshers at Google are significantly smaller than Meta for the same level and role and performance multipliers are much scarcer,” McKinnon noted.
According to him, Google workers who are deemed to have a “significant impact” on the business do not get extra bonuses or stock refreshers.
A Google representative refuted McKinnon’s claim that workers receive lower annual salaries in part because they don’t receive extra bonuses or stock refreshers for having a “significant impact” rating in a statement to Business Insider.
Every employee who obtains a “Significant Impact” rating receives a substantial multiplier that raises their bonus and equity refresh above the goal amount. We want to recognize and thank the majority of Google employees because we know they are having a big impact,” the spokesman stated.
The “vast majority of Googlers received a compensation increase” in 2024, the representative added, which included bonuses, equity grants, and salary increases.
One worker complained to BI that the stock refreshers were “noticeably smaller than what Google has historically offered,” while another manager claimed that even though some employees received an “outstanding” grade, their total compensation decreased.
Opportunities for projects
According to McKinnon, Meta and Google are “bottom-up” organisations, meaning that most ideas come from small teams creating prototypes, with additional co-workers coming in if the concept takes off.
“Both Gmail (Google) and Marketplace (Meta) were famously side projects that grew into major components of the businesses,” McKinnon wrote.
According to McKinnon, while Meta’s leadership is generally excited about new concepts and pursues them “aggressively,” the idea may be rejected fast if it does not live up to expectations. Nevertheless, the firms assess and support new ideas differently.
When Clubhouse, an audio-based social networking app, was first popular, the product manager recounted how he worked on an audio-social project.
He wrote, “A couple hundred friends and I got invited to see if we could make social audio work in Facebook Blue,” alluding to the company’s then-current attempt to create a rival audio-social-app. “Less than a year later, when it was clear we weren’t meeting expectations, our team was blown up.”
Additionally, McKinnon stated that if teams have divergent ideas about a product, Meta’s leadership—including CEO Mark Zuckerberg—may step in to resolve the issue.
“If Mark or his execs encounter two different visions for a product, they request reviews from the battling parties and make a call based on their judgment,” McKinnon wrote. “This top-down control can cut both ways, depending on which side of the decision you’re on.”
But at Google, teams can work on similar projects for “literally decades” without leadership getting in the way, according to McKinnon, who cited the company’s ownership of the GPS apps Waze and Maps.
Product managers who wish to work with their teams to realize their ideas for products may find this beneficial, but it can also be “frustrating for ambitious PMs who want to build products that require larger teams,” the author noted.
Furthermore, according to McKinnon, project timelines at Google can “span decades”.
He claimed that after presenting a concept to a Google vice president, the executive said that while the idea was excellent, he would prefer that staff concentrate on Google’s search business.
“This interaction encapsulates how Google thinks about change, which is likely correct from the perspective of Google shareholders but potentially not appealing to prospective product managers,” McKinnon said.
Regarding Alphabet’s first-quarter performance, a Google representative cited CEO Sundar Pichai’s remarks, in which he described the company’s efforts to accelerate growth by streamlining team structures.
Company transparency
Meta maintains some transparency through internal forums and dashboards, and Zuckerberg still hosts weekly Q&A sessions. Managers are expected to be upfront about promotions and compensation is predictable. However, this level of transparency means employees have “nowhere to hide” and must stay engaged.
At Google, communication is mainly through email or chat, making it harder to know what everyone is doing. Pichai’s communication style may be less candid, and compensation and feedback are less predictable. While this can hinder learning and growth, it allows for a better work-life balance. Overall, transparency has decreased for both companies.
Expression in the workplace
At Meta, dissent is welcomed, creating a truth-seeking environment where decisions are data-driven and questioning is encouraged. This culture may unsettle those accustomed to non-confrontational settings. Google, however, has a more reserved atmosphere regarding free expression.
Questioning priorities is not typically encouraged, fostering a collegial but potentially frustrating environment for PMs seeking change. In April, Google fired at least 28 employees for protesting Project Nimbus, a cloud-computing contract with Israel’s government.
Career ladder
According to McKinnon, advancement at Meta appears to happen more quickly than at Google, where seniority is frequently a determining factor.
He said that several of Meta’s vice presidents are young, such as Susan Li, the company’s chief financial officer, who took over the position at the age of 36.
According to McKinnon, “Google is much more time-based.”
Tenure-based promotions are assigned to managers according to a quota; promotions based on exceptional performance are possible but “much rarer,” he said.
He did, however, add a disclaimer: “These observations about job growth cut both ways. Although I have never experienced it, I think that Meta makes it much simpler to be dismissed for subpar work than Google does, which should undoubtedly be taken into consideration by individuals who value job security above all else.”
Software engineers versus project managers
According to McKinnon, product managers at Meta and Google can have various roles.
McKinnon observed that software developers initiated and oversaw most initiatives at Google, with project managers having a more supporting role.
He noted that product managers at Meta are given more responsibility and are “in charge of both ensuring the larger team is building something useful and that usefulness can be quantified and iterated on.”
“Both approaches have their merit, but I never could shake the feeling that Google could delete its entire PM function and not feel much in the way of repercussions,” McKinnon wrote.
(Tashia Bernardus)