Climb — Offer Comparison
Compare job offers by actual vesting shape, not just TC
12 followers
Compare job offers by actual vesting shape, not just TC
12 followers
Most offer comparisons show total comp, but that hides when the money shows up. Climb lets you enter base, bonus, RSU grant, and vesting schedule (presets or custom) for up to 3 offers, then charts cumulative earned value year over year — so you see the cliff, not just a number. Also shows walk-away value if you leave after year 1. No signup, single page. Feedback on the vesting math welcome.
The walk away after year 1 number is the one I actually want. Does that account for refreshers too, or just the original grant vesting out?
@talhakhalidmtk Good catch, right now it's just the original grant vesting out, no refresher modeling yet. Refreshers are the biggest gap I'm aware of in the current version, mainly because they vary so much company to company (timing, size, whether they're even guaranteed) that I wanted to get the core vesting-cliff comparison right first before adding that complexity. It's on my list for a v2, appreciate you flagging it, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for.
The cumulative chart is a really nice touch, most people don't realize how much the timing matters. One thing I'd love to see is a sign-on bonus field too, since that's often the make-or-break part of an offer and it changes the early curve a lot.
@selahattinwhn2 Really glad the timing framing is landing, that's the whole thesis of the tool. Good news: there's actually already a signing bonus field on each offer card (right under base/bonus %) it factors straight into the year 1 curve. If it wasn't obvious, that's on me for how it's laid out, not you — I'll look at making it more visible. Appreciate you testing it closely enough to notice this mattered.
Super useful for spotting vest cliffs. One thing that would help: let me factor in a refresh grant or expected annual RSU top-ups so the "year 3" line isn't artificially flat. Real offers aren't static, and modeling expected refreshes would make the cumulative chart way more honest.
@asiyeenisoczbn This is the third time refreshers have come up today, so clearly I need to build it. You're right that the flat year 3/4 line is misleading, most real offers aren't static, and modeling expected top-ups would make the whole chart more honest instead of just charting the grant as originally written. This is jumping to the top of my v2 list after today.
The cliff visualization is such a smart framing. One thing I'd love to see is factoring in the value of remaining unvested equity if you get laid off vs. quit, since severance and acceleration rules can change the walk-away math pretty dramatically depending on the company.
@coztturk23123 Really glad the cliff framing is landing — that was the whole point, since a flat TC number just doesn't show that. And yeah, you're right that severance/acceleration policy is a huge variable I'm currently ignoring entirely, right now walk-away value assumes zero acceleration, which is the conservative/worst-case read but definitely not accurate for every company. Layoff vs. voluntary quit is a good way to frame that as a toggle rather than trying to model every company's specific policy. Adding it to the list, thanks for thinking this through with me.
Really useful take on offer comp, the vesting cliff angle is something most calculators completely miss. One thing that would make this even better for me: an inflation adjusted view, since RSUs vesting over four years lose real value and it would help see the actual purchasing power difference between offers side by side.
@musa_n40993 Really appreciate that, the cliff angle felt like the obvious thing missing from every comp calculator I'd used, so good to hear it's landing. Inflation-adjusted purchasing power is a great addition, you're right that a dollar vesting in year 4 isn't worth what it looks like on paper. That's a clean toggle to add (real vs. nominal view) rather than a structural change, so it's a good candidate for v2. Thanks for the sharp feedback.
Plotted two offers with different RSU cliffs and finally saw why the bigger headline number was actually worse in year two. Really useful for back-to-back comparisons.
@ozcifttaha29558 This is exactly the moment I built it for — so glad it clicked. The headline number problem is honestly what got me annoyed enough to build this in the first place; it's wild how often a bigger TC number is actually the worse offer once you see it year by year instead of as one lump sum. Really appreciate you taking the time to actually plot two offers and share this.