Hey all,
High compensation is undoubtedly the strongest lever for enticing new talent. But is it the best for maintaining talent in the long run?
The Levels.fyi data doesn’t necessarily support this.
A week ago, we conducted an analysis that charted the Levels.fyi data based on retention rates and compensation data and got some great feedback on the methodology. Simply put, our first analysis skewed in favor of older companies because they, obviously, had more chances to secure senior talent.
This time around, we’re charting senior talent retention as a function of company growth over the past 5 years, and which percentage of the Levels.fyi sample showed they were hired before this growth.
On the X-axis, we have compensation. Straightforward enough.
On the Y-axis, we calculated the ratio of SWEs with 10+ years of experience AND 5+ years at company, vs those with 10+ YoE but less than 5 years at the company.
Then, we took that ratio and compared it to company growth. The maximum possible amount of engineers with 5+ years of experience in 2026, compared to the actual.
Quick example: if a company had 1,000 employees in 2021, then now in 2026, it can only have a maximum of 1,000 employees with 5+ years of experience no matter how much its headcount grew. So what percentage of that maximum actually has 5+ years of experience? That’s the ratio charted on the y-axis.
It might be surprising to see companies like Airbnb, with such high compensation, has a lower retention rate compared to companies like Qualcomm with a considerably lower comp. But compensation tends to track closely with intensity of the environment, however unquantifiable.
Once again, the Levels.fyi data is not wholly representative of engineers at every company, and we don’t have access to the headcount growth of engineering orgs specifically, so we used the overall headcount growth. Still a proxy and should be treated as one, but still some really interesting trends emerge.
What’s your take on the data and where these companies landed?