I’ve been casually exploring exits from consulting and I’m seeing two pretty different opportunities shape up. One is a PM role at a series C startup that’s interesting—solid product, real market fit, but they’re comp’ing lower base salary and making up a meaningful chunk with equity. The other is a corporate strategy role at one of the big tech companies with a standard solid salary and some RSUs, but honestly the work feels safer and more defined.
I know the startup equity conversation is fraught with optimism bias and I’m trying to be realistic about it. The startup genuinely feels like where I’d learn faster and get more actual ownership, but I’m also aware that most stock options end up being worth nothing and the trajectory is uncertain.
I don’t want to make this decision purely on the equity delta. But I also don’t want to leave money on the table if there’s a real expected value play here. Has anyone thought through this calculation seriously? How do you weigh optionality and learning velocity against the concrete paycheck and stability?
The equity question requires a probabilistic framework. Assign realistic probabilities to three outcomes: strong exit (acquisition or IPO at substantial markup, 20-30% chance for a solid series C), modest outcome (acquihire or smaller exit, 30-40%), and zero outcome (40-50%). Calculate expected value of the equity grant under these scenarios. Most series C packages vest over 4 years. Compare that expected equity value to the salary delta you’re leaving on the table. In most cases, the salary difference compounds faster than equity outliers pay off. However, if this startup has particularly strong founders, market timing, or demonstrated traction, the probability distribution shifts. Quantify your assumptions and revisit them quarterly.
look, equity is basically a lottery ticket they’re giving u instead of a real salary increase. take the big tech job. u get paid actual money, u get benefits, u get the resume bullet, and u can leave without worrying about whether the startup you bet on becomes worthless. i’ve seen way too many ppl turn down certainty for “upside” and then the company pivots or raises at a down round and their options are just gone.
This deserves a more nuanced view. Startup equity can be valuable, but only under specific conditions: the founders have credibility and prior exits, the market dynamics are favorable, and you genuinely believe in the product direction. More importantly, you need to understand the cap table and liquidation preferences—those details matter enormously for what your equity is actually worth. That said, the non-financial value proposition matters here too. Corporate strategy at a big tech company gives you scale exposure and brand credibility. Early-stage startup PM gives you speed and ownership. If you’re early in your career and can afford the risk, the learning velocity at a startup often outweighs the equity uncertainty. If you need stability or are risk-averse, the corporate path is the cleaner choice. Neither is universally ‘right.’
Both paths lead forward! If you’re excited about the startup’s product and the team, go for it—the growth you’ll get is real. If stability and clear structure matter more, the big tech role is equally valid. You can’t go wrong!
this is such a good question. i’d prob lean toward whichever role lets u learn faster, bc skills compound way more than equity typically does imo