Great coworkers, didn't find product fit and the consequences trickled down to the org. - Software Engineer Forward Employee Review

3.0
30 Sept 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

1. Smart and friendly coworkers 2. Good engineering culture 3. Opportunities for growth

Cons

1. Not-profitable - Forward never found a working model to solve the problem, and anchored heavily on solutions that lacked market-fit evidence. Contradictory to the problem-focused culture at Forward. 2. The finance problems lead to urgency. Work was demanding and tough across the org. However, engineering velocity was not the problem to begin with, leading to a vicious cycle of unmet goals -> tighter deadlines. 3. Frequent and fundamental shifts in company priorities leading to disorganized sprints and planning. A lot of work were throw away despite long hours invested.

Explore other reviews about Forward

5.0
14 Jan 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Supportive and collaborative team, strong product mindset, clear goals, and respect for design. High ownership, trust, and autonomy. Leadership is open to feedback, and designers are involved in real product decisions, not just visuals.

Cons

Fast-paced environment with a lot of responsibility, which may not be ideal for someone looking for a slower or more structured workflow. Priorities can shift as the company grows, but this is typical for scaling teams.

3.0
28 Dec 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

-Forward had an interesting model while it was an active company, a 24/7 medical service with physical locations in major cities across the US. -Hours were extremely flexible and allowed for great control over work-life balance and anything unexpected. -Employees seemed to be trusted to do their job and were allowed to problem solve as long as metrics were being met.

Cons

-Lack of allowance for communication among employees for teamwork and learning. -Company didn't have accounts with insurance providers' online tools as many transitioned to moving away from telephone service, particularly for medical prior authorizations. -Internal tools were often not intelligent enough to assign work to proper staff or at the proper time of day. -Escalation pathways to upper management and other teams were often not available or not made clear. -Company hired entry-level staff (at least in my role) under the pretense of being employees, but the job contract listed them as consultants. As staff worked and were paid by the hour and had how the work was done specifically instructed and controlled, this doesn't meet the IRS definition of an independent contractor. -Onboarding, at least at the time of my hiring, was ill-equipped. Training was self-study, which was ok, but to start working staff had to test out with a live staff on a video call. These staff were booked very far out and had no flexibility with their time. Case in point, on my first testing call, we were on the last test question and needed about 2-3 minutes to complete it, but because that would exceed the allotted time of the call, the staff could not stay on with me and allow me to test out. This meant waiting for an open meeting slot 2 weeks later with no available paid hours for training in the meantime.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All