Middling Future - Anonymous employee Ultragenyx Employee Review

1.0
Apr 13, 2018
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Free lunch Thursday, flexible work location(s)

Cons

The waste of money on no-talent clowns who litter the upper reaches (particularly QA and Commercial orgs) of this top-heavy company is staggering. There is no true future until this waste is purged and this leadership team at the top figures it out (or is replaced itself). It’s nice to have a great mission and care about patients, but there is no stewardship of the resources and trust investors have bestowed upon the company. Those investors include numerous employees who find options to be hopelessly underwater or who have restricted stock units which will sit in stock purgatory between $40-$65 a share between now till 5 years from now. The door is open and the best talent is leaving out of it. The rejects keep collecting the welfare/promotions while the hard workers toil in obscurity.

Explore other reviews about Ultragenyx

5.0
May 12, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great place with great people who are all pulling toward a common goal of bringing therapies to market that will change people's lives

Cons

For a small company, decisions can take a while to make because everyone wants to be involved, and most people in centralized roles work across all of the different brands within the company.

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1mo
Thank you for your review and thoughtful feedback. We’re proud of the passion our teams bring to advancing therapies for patients, and we appreciate you sharing your perspective on how we work together. We’re glad to have you with us!
3.0
Jul 18, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good benefits and generally reasonable work-life balance.

Cons

In my experience, the organization had many layers of leadership (many VPs, Sr Directors and Directors), unclear decision-making authority, and frequently changing priorities, which sometimes slowed progress and weakened accountability. Considerable time was devoted to meetings, presentations, and strategy, but these activities did not always translate into measurable scientific outcomes. Hands-on scientists often appeared to have limited influence over technical decisions. Leadership also seemed to favor established hypotheses, outsourcing, and new biology-focused pilot studies over investing in innovative platform technologies that could address multiple diseases. Alternative perspectives and technical concerns did not always receive sufficient consideration. Career advancement appeared more accessible to highly visible employees with strong networking and presentation skills than to those contributing primarily through laboratory and technical work. While the benefits and work-life balance were positive, I would have valued clearer priorities, greater scientific openness, and stronger support for hands-on contributors.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All