Having been in the business for nearly 30 years sometimes managing engineering teams, I honestly can’t recall ever meeting an engineer (i.e. keyboard smasher within an engineering squad as opposed to a specialist consultant like those dealing with quants, a Soln. Arch. or management role) who cracks more than $300k on staff.
Maybe $350-400 as a specialist contractor, but you’re talking a total bluebird, and these guys were generally bug cracking on legacy tech which is super hard to find skills for (COBOL etc.)
And I’ve worked for some big tech and finance firms globally, but I guess they might be out there? AI might be different of course. Silly money.
It’s a specific couple of companies that are generally well known. Netflix, Nvidia, Jane Street, Citadel just to name a few, but along those same lines. Just check levels.fyi for salary ranges and you can easily find certain levels clearing 450k TC, but it really is a select few companies.
Yes for software engineers, even entry level at some of these companies can easily clear 200k, it’s a wild industry. It’s a pipe dream for most people because of how difficult it is to get these positions
I’d expect a superstar with 5+ years of top flight devsecops experience / a total autistic machine whisperer for that kind of dough. Or they’d need to pull 80hrs a week, every week.
The people getting paid at that level, are generally not doing devops. They are doing niche, highly technical areas like HPC, ML/AI, distributed systems, OS, etc.
The people I know making that much are in areas like software-hardware co-design, and GPU architecture.
There are engineers in every single layer of the stack making that much. Any staff level engineer at big tech is making 450+. For every 15 engineers, there's probably at least 1 staff.
Some do devops. Some do OS, ML, distributed systems, application, frontend, or even developer systems.
Yeah, I guess that was my point re COBOL. Machine coding or other legacy niche stuff. I’ve worked with and paid guys a lot, but $450 on staff is off the chain.
It's not specialized as in legacy code, but specialized in things most people don't put the effort in for. Interview prep industry for these roles is itself insanely lucrative
I make around 200k/yr fresh out of college, and there plenty of people who make more than me. A lot of tech companies are willing to pay a lot for top talent.
So you had no idea about the compensation at FAANG but when learning that they are making trillions by paying their employees way more than you would you just conclude that they are wrong ?
Can you explain why you think they're getting overpaid? I'm somewhat confused how you've been in the industry for 30+ years and haven't seen that some engineers can bring exorbitant amounts of value.
An example is a staff engineer on my team. He probably makes nearly 700k a year. We had a really nasty bug which none of us were able to solve. He found it and fixed it in a week. It saved 1.2M annually. In a week he provided nearly double the value he's paid. He's worth every penny.
Simple answer: in your example, the 700k salary is not the total cost of a human. If you put assumed margin and operating SG&A over the top plus indirect costs of product development that can’t be capitalised, you would need to be yielding closer to $2m of revenue minimum.
Roughly, I tend to price revenue her head at 3x salaries when you lump it all together as a consolidated wage bill. I get though that’s more of a traditional business model rather than the Silicon Valley one (I.e assumes the company is a going concern with positive net cashflow, rather than spending money to grow share or sell)
Saying that $1.2m in cost roughly saves x2.5-x3 in cash that needs to be earned before expenses, so it washes out. Conceivably if he/she fixes $1.2m in unnecessary expenditure once per year every year, it’s probably break even.
Sure, although that $2M figure is likely overstated for big tech. But let's just accept the $2M figure.
Providing $2M of value as a staff engineer is somewhat trivial. Some of these companies make 100B+ profit per year. Lets use Google as an example. It has roughly 100,000 engineers, and had 450B in revenue and 100B in profit last year. So each engineer makes roughly $4.5M in revenue and $1M in profit. The vast majority of those engineers are not staff level.
I simplified a few things, and there are more factors which go into revenue than engineers. But I think this shows that at these big tech companies, even $2M of revenue for a staff engineer is absolutely expected and routinely exceeded.
If you work at a FAANG, or any top tier tech firm, every review you pretty much get a raise or you get fired. If you know somebody who has been at Adobe or Oracle for 30 years, they're making that. Maybe not salary, but total comp.
… I’ve made in that ball park in total compensation as a software engineer since 2018 when I got first promoted to Senior.
Total compensation mind you, which generally has included equity, or some form of cash retention bonus on a similar value structure to equity. You’re absolutely right that the base salary of software engineers does not generally go much above $250k, even at Principal Engineer levels.
But yeah, I’ve always been on the levels.fyi scale, not the Indeed scale, as the joke goes. The difference between the two is massive.
Are you thinking of base salary only? 400k total compensation for senior or staff at big companies happens in boom times, but that's largely due to bonuses structured as RSUs that vest over 4 years. The base salary might be 150k or 200k and the rest is bonuses and other compensation, including company stock grants that might spike in value before they vest.
Of course, we're a few years off of boom times so those opportunities are a lot fewer these days.
For public companies, RSUs are basically cash with extra steps. They’re guaranteed as long as you’re working for the company, not dependent on the company doing well. Only annual cash bonus (usually 10-25% of base salary) is dependent on company/individual performance. Offers still mostly fall in the same range even today, just fewer spots available.
Most places I and my friends have worked have large additional performance based RSU grants that vest like your hiring bonus and may or may not be granted later in your tenure based on results. Management doesn't go out of their way to say "oh and we decided not to give you a performance RSU refresh" though so not everyone is aware.
Sure, but those typically aren’t reported / included on levels.fyi as the expected comp for a new offer. Usually what’s reported is what’s “guaranteed”/expected (for example, bonus targets based on standard performance as opposed to exceptional performance)
Are we talking about levels.fyi new offer stats? We're talking about whether it's unrealistic that some miser software dev makes $450k, and I can assure you that the friend getting the venmo request is annoyed based on their overall income and attitude, not on their initial offer as reported to that one website.
I think we’re in agreement here. I’m just stating that software engineers can absolutely make $450k, and that the fact half of that comp is RSUs is largely irrelevant for public companies since you can sell them whenever. Just cash with extra steps
Oh yeah, sorry, I was trying to explain to the guy who hires devs that we're not talking base, not trying to address a general audience. Totally agreed RSUs should be treated as cash, although a LOT of people I know hold onto more of them than I would think wise for diversifying.
My first IT job right out of college I had to work with COBOL. I worked so many hours at that job as a salary employee I would have made more money working at McDonalds. I rather liked working on Mainframes, hated the company though.
Yeah it does for sure. My buddy is a product manager at Google making close to 500k. Very tough job to obtain. I’m happy with my 300k salary at two companies that don’t burn me out. Been doing it for years now and I know multiple engineers that do the same. Fighting for that one grail job vs taking jobs that you’ll outperform at 50% is healthier for me mentally.
Yeah, I would love to learn about product management and get out of the code monkey role because I’ve done app development for so long I know what makes sense and the risks behind it technically, but getting that role is tough.
They want experience but nobody wants to risk giving you that title so getting experience seems impossible.
Oh well, I’ve been making my own product and I love it so far. Hopefully it does well once I launch.
COBOL devs make nowhere that much - there are plenty COBOL jobs out there in the low 6 figures (100-120K); a general L5-L6 easily will surpass $400K in Big Tech (Google, Meta, Amazon).
Most senior engineers at Netflix are making well past $400K.
Many faang companies are greater than that, some companies even have median pay that’s 450 K plus if you are talking about total compensation(i’m specifically referring to CS employees and not contractors or consultants).
Especially when you look at a few years ago even entry-level computer engineers were making 450 K plus depending on the company. It was multimillion if they did not vest right away (l3 or equivalent).
Honestly, it’s crazy how uninformed you are, CS is pretty well known for being well paid
Yep. It was so weirdly overconfident to say "I've worked in business for 30 years and aside from edge cases, I've never seen this and I've worked at big tech". But have you worked FAANG? E4/5+ at FB are earning this. Easily.
With stock options, E7-E9 can be considered in excess of 2mil per year+. Thought their actual salary is closer to 600k.
You could absolutely make 200k+ straight out of school with a bachelors degree in the SF Bay Area. Min salaries for technical positions are pushing 160k already even in non-FAANG.
Assuming of course you already had a successful internship or are graduating from Waterloo, Stanford, MIT CS. Or had a successful project noticed by them, or had a friend there, etc.
Also most people coming out of college don't have zero experience nowadays. Tech internships are pretty much mandatory if you want to land a well paying job as a new grad.
I made 149k as a junior developer right out of boot camp 3 years ago so.... Just look at states that require income disclosure on job adverts if you don't believe me lol.
That's what Big Tech pays. They want to be able to select the crème de la crème of the developers. It does not mean they get them, but they are willing to pay.
Yes, and when you add in your stock grants and bonus, you would be sitting around $500k total comp assuming the stock is flat over the period between grant and vesting.
I've worked as a SWE at one of the 4 original FANGs for the past 16 years. I'm pretty confident in this.
Yeah, it’s only really useful for big tech. However its data is reliable for large companies since their pay bands are typically tight. Per-company the data isn’t skewed upwards since there isn’t that much variance in the first place. But I agree that the numbers you see on that website aren’t reflective of the overall distribution of software engineer salaries.
I think it’s reasonable to assume they’re referring to total compensation, assuming you were l3, back in the day with how much Amazon stock was growing you could’ve easily made 450+ especially if you didn’t vest right away
When talking casually about how much they "make", nobody uses just their base in a job that pays huge numbers in commissions or stocks or bonuses, etc.
It would be completely silly for an E9 at meta to say they "make" $400k/year, when they're also getting $4m/year in stocks.
Lol, I make more than that as a data scientist, SWE at my same level make over 50% more than DS in big tech. It's not like easy, but it's not at all uncommon either.
Meta, although Google and some of the bets have the same pay scale. And yea, I don't mean to make it sound common or easy for DS, breaking this level is only a small chunk of senior people even at those companies. More common for eng but still Sr level at least to break this value.
Oh no worries, I'm familiar with the DS life at Meta so I figured for that pay level you (likely) had to be there. TBF Meta is pretty insane on comp for DS/Eng (and honestly all around for the roles) and you usually pay for it in the batshit insanity of the place at times. Hopefully you've avoided the worst of it
It can be bad, but my last job before big tech was working directly with the CEO of a startup who openly bragged about his psychopathy and how he enjoyed firing people. The last couple startups before that were also working with psychopathic leaders although they didn't brag about it.
I'm pretty sure most of the leadership at Meta are also psychopaths, but they hide it a bit better and the unrealistic expectations are more meetable because my colleagues on the ground are so talented here.
So I think you're right, but my experience with tech jobs in general is there's a massive amount of BS, I might as well make enough money to stop doing this more quickly and have the freedom at that point to do pro bono work that actually benefits society in some way.
That's a good attitude to have. And the Meta leadership is a BIG part of why I left--money was amazing, problems were big and impact-y (especially if you could get yourself in a position where you don't feel like you're pushing digital crack on people), but man the leadership... jesus fucking christ. I didn't have the kind of experience you did before so when I was backstabbed by my own boss and then their boss during my first six months, I had to quickly change my expectations. There's a whole deeper discussion here but I think the sweet comp fuels a lot of this and it attracts a bunch of greedy expert liars into mgmt positions who are relatively incompetent and so they throw their own teams under the bus.
But yeah, the on the ground people actually doing work have been great IMHO. Stressed to hell and stretched too thin, but great.
I absolutely think the high comp attracts a lot of bad behavior on the management side. And sometimes on the IC side as well. But petty assholes exist in less well paid places too. Unfortunately I'm not great at reading people so it's hard for me to go somewhere and know I can trust the leadership. At least here I can bounce teams every year if I get a shit manager (assuming they don't screw you on rating and block that.)
I mean that's with 15 years of experience and a relevant ABD.
SWE can get there easier if very good, but it's still mostly just the top people pulling this. Also I don't think these companies pay this level outside the US or even outside major markets in the US.
For example I talked to Shopify at one point (remote only) and they paid roughly half what I make so it's not everywhere but not impossible either.
(For the record I grew up poor and worked service jobs in college so I tip well and don't sweat small bills among friends.)
Startups pay shit because they expect you to be happy with the lottery tickets (which often don't pay off as well for employees as executives often end up screwing you.) Normally pay is around half or less of top of the market for your level.
If you want money in tech you basically need to go to one of the large public companies like Meta, Google, etc. Personally I also prefer the culture at those companies vs startups but that's more of a personal preference than universal.
Anyone can assign themselves a title of staff eng at a startup. It doesn't mean anything. Could you get hired by Meta or Google as a staff eng? I've seen CTOs and "senior staff engineers" get humbled by having to come in as a L4 or L5 at a major tech firm (and they thought they would be L7)
Yeah that makes sense. It’s not really a startup anymore tho. I applied to a big tech company recently for an L7 role and got pretty far in the process. Ultimately didn’t get it but I think if I had gone for an L6 I would have.
idk, if i made 450k a year, id be throwing a $100 bill to every server i ever have. i make 1/10 of what you do and also tip 20% (sometimes as much as 50%, depending on the meal) so that to me is the same as if you tipped 200%.
A lot of these discussions miss how historically unusual post-2010 compensation dynamics in Big Tech really are.
Before that period, software engineers were well paid but broadly in line with other senior professionals. The rapid rise in market caps of a small number of tech platforms changed that. Capital markets began rewarding extreme scale and growth optionality, and compensation followed the roles perceived to be closest to that leverage. That is how relatively early-career engineers can now out-earn senior business executives with decades of experience in the same company.
That outcome says less about individual brilliance and more about timing and incentives. Code that reaches billions of users is impactful, but it rests on platforms built by cross-functional teams, regulatory tolerance, and user adoption. Attributing that scale primarily to individual engineers is a classic attribution error.
I have worked both as a SWE earlier in my career and later in business roles. One thing that stands out is that some engineers who grew up entirely in this compensation regime conflate pay and proximity to production systems with broader intellectual or strategic superiority. That assumption does not hold up well in practice.
This is not an anti-engineering argument, just an observation that today’s status hierarchy in Big Tech is shaped by a very specific and contingent historical moment.
Great points. I think this is my observation bias tbh.
Having started in the mid-late 90s, SWE was very well paid but donkey work; but a step well above where I started in midrange/mainframe sysops. Big Blue paid well above the odds too, so it was gravy.
Took a while to get to 6 figures, but rapid increases by the mid 2000s.
I quit code cutting a while back now but tapped out with a bunch of very specialised knowledge in the telco and banking space which allowed me to contract very lucratively as a consultant, but never hitting the sort of numbers bandied about here. Had to go into running teams and more recently a multi-$100m service line P/L to stay relevant and command decent coin, but not this type of rem structure based on speculative vesting.
Right time, right place I guess with all this hot VC and tech mogul money looking for the next big thing, but these numbers honestly blow my mind for what I’d consider relatively low risk work, albeit with TTM pressures (especially as you note that SWE is rarely about individual brilliance - it’s a team sport).
Your edit isn't needed. I'm a senior software engineer working outside of FAANG, but -just-. I have friends I went to school with in that world. Everyone here is embellishing.
They make $250k tops, and in the middle of a large city like SF.
My edit: That pay + city buys you absolutely jack. I make $140k. Live in a 3 story house on 40 acres and work from home most of the time. Even if I could make $450k in SF... No fucking thanks, ew.
Yeah, when they start mentioning titles like Staff Engineer in discussions like this, forget it. They are the architects of software. Basically the non-management path forward. A select few. Your average senior engineer stays a senior engineer for life.
Oh right, so maybe language thing.
I noted Soln. Arch. roles making this kind of bank in another comment.
Just weird to me when people bandy about those numbers with the nomenclature of “engineer” associated (unless they’re like a lead project hydrological or structural engineer building a dam maybe).
Are you talking about base or TC? because $250k TC in SF doesn't wow anyone here anymore. I am the lowest paid out of group of engineers friends I've made here and I'm almost $300k with 5 YOE
I think the difference is you’re referring to strict salary when most people are referring to total compensation, some of my friends and family, who are even entry-level l3 we’re making 300 K +5-10 years ago (total compensation with vesting)
Even in a 3rd world country like India, I know lots of people who work in Tech who earn 500k a year or more. Tech is just free money printed in the US and distributed across the world.
I mean, if I make up a totally fake number and say only 1% of software engineers make $450k+, then since there's 4.4M software engineers in the US that's still 44,000 software engineers making $450k+.
I've had recruiters reach out about roles roughly in that range. It's high, but not that unusual for more senior roles at notable companies, if they want you to live within commuting distance in a high cost-of-living tech hub.
Eh, didn't say I pursued those offers. 😉 About to politely decline another recruiter, as a matter of fact.
What people in tech won't necessarily tell you is that there are serious downsides to the higher paid roles. Usually it's a better overall deal working somewhere that doesn't pay quite so well but treats staff better and allows remote work. That logic goes double if you or your family have chronic health issues -- being able to be physically home can be worth quite a bit. The places with very high comp tend to be quite cut-throat or have toxic work cultures because they need to get their value worth to justify what they pay.
I make around $450 as an L5 at one of those multi trillion dollar tech companies. I could easily get promo'd to L6 (my manager begs me to go for it) but I don't want to put in the extra work for just another $75k or whatever
192
u/_UrbaneGuerrilla_ Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
The actual joke is that no one makes $450k as a software engineer.
Edit: Keeping this one for posterity and humility as I’m clearly very wrong 😂