I&#x27;m going to be unusually blunt here:  I don&#x27;t buy that name recognition isn&#x27;t part of your equation (even if only a small or subconscious part).  I could be totally ass-backwards wrong.  You could have a mental discipline to make these sort of decisions in a far more principled fashion than myself or any engineer I&#x27;ve ever met; but that statement makes me set my Bayesian prior where I set it.  At the end of the day, we all know that name recognition _is_ a component to how future opportunities may play out, like it or not, and as engineers trained (hopefully) in the art of considering the possible outcomes and impact of our actions, it would be going against our nature to pretend that having &quot;Google&quot; or &quot;Microsoft&quot; on your resume will not open doors.<p>College is a prime example of this.  Why are certain schools (Ivys, primarily) so highly recognized?  Do they universally have better programs?  Sometimes, sure, but so much of their cache comes exclusively from the institution itself being a signaling mechanism of exclusivity, and as was put, &quot;buzzwordyness&quot;.<p>In my view, it would be irresponsible to NOT consider any potential added value of positions when comparing them.  You are not doing a disservice to either company or your own integrity as an engineer as long as the work you do is sound, and to suggest that you should put your own best interests aside because a given metric isn&#x27;t &quot;tasteful&quot; seems shortsighted.  (I do not mean to suggest that hopping companies to ride trends is something to be looked up to, but that when you make a decision, the more data that helps you obtain a positive outcome the better.)