CGI is satisfactory. - Consultant CGI Employee Review

3.0
Sep 21, 2008
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

From a systems development lifecycle (SDLC) perspective, the company places a strong emphasis on developing repeatable processes. It is a good place to development SDLC skills.

Cons

The workload can be overwhelming. Management commits to deliverables/products without a realistic understanding of the resources required. There is also a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy created due to internal reviews of quality checks. On paper, CGI provides compensation time for any time worked after the 16th hour of overtime within its pay period. In reality, this is discouraged. You are expected to complete your work even during crunch times without accruing overtime. CGI's benefits are subpar. Its cap on 401(k) contribution is disappointing. Tuition reimbursement is not common.

Explore other reviews about CGI

5.0
Jun 9, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Inclusive workplace; great benefits; supportive of personal and professional growth; decent compensation for the area; - especially given the benefits; great leadership; strong culture and values.

Cons

Can be ups and downs if you are in a more volatile area of work which has contracts come and go. AI has increased that volatility across the industry and CGI hasn’t been immune. Individuals experience can vary by manager, but it’s a very good company.

1.0
Jun 16, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

no specific positives to highlight from my perspective

Cons

I worked at CGI in both India and the USA and observed similar workplace culture concerns across both locations. The only real difference was HR—India HR felt more supportive, while my experience with USA HR was disappointing. My employment ended shortly after maternity leave due to an alleged “lack of projects,” which I experienced as a layoff. I also observed what appeared to be misuse of position by some leaders, including blurred professional boundaries, preferential treatment, and expectations that went beyond normal workplace roles—at times resembling personal-assistant-style demands rather than professional conduct. Surprisingly, I also noticed inconsistent “policies” applied differently to different individuals. In some cases, it felt like the rules changed depending on who you were. When leadership became aware that someone was related to another employee in the organization, it sometimes felt like that person was singled out or targeted rather than treated objectively. Overall, these practices—whether through inconsistent treatment, perceived power misuse, or favoritism—undermine trust, damage workplace culture, and raise serious concerns about fairness and professionalism.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All