I compare two job offers with a written decision table because memory tends to overvalue the newest conversation or the largest salary number. I want to compare the actual working arrangements, not just the headlines.
I calculate total compensation
I include base salary, realistic bonus, employer retirement contributions, insurance costs, leave, equity terms, and any signing payment. I note eligibility dates and conditions instead of treating every benefit as immediate cash.
I evaluate the manager and role
I score clarity of expectations, quality of the manager, decision authority, workload, team stability, and the problems I would inherit. A higher salary can be poor compensation for an undefined role under an unavailable manager.
I include time and location
I calculate commute hours, travel, remote expectations, schedule flexibility, and likely after-hours work. These factors affect the real value of the offer every week.
I consider future options
I ask which role will build useful skills, credible results, relationships, and access to the next kind of work I want. I do not assume the larger company automatically creates better growth.
My comparison categories
- Total compensation and financial risk
- Manager and team quality
- Role clarity and meaningful responsibility
- Learning and career options
- Schedule, commute, and flexibility
- Company stability and ethical concerns
- Personal deal-breakers
I separate scores from deal-breakers
A role cannot compensate for a non-negotiable condition by collecting points elsewhere. I list deal-breakers before scoring so I do not rationalize them later.
After the comparison, I notice which assumptions remain unverified and ask the employer. The table does not make the decision for me; it prevents one attractive feature from hiding the rest of the job.