A follow-up to the firm matrix, applied to firm categories

Last month, we shared a matrix mapping out top firms across pay, hours and job satisfaction compared to the market. But so often, people are asking whether certain category of firm is right for them, and so this might be a more helpful way to frame that conversation than a firm specific matrix. And the truth is that I hated not being able to represent the smaller firms in the previous matrix because individually their sample sizes are too low, but bundled together we can get a clearer picture.

And now a little something fresh for my Canadian readers! This edition of the newsletter is sponsored by TaxGrit! I work with a lot of amazing tech vendors in the accounting space, but as a Canadian myself, I’m always a bit bummed that its only for the US readers and services are often not available in Canada yet. But today, we’re doing the opposite.

TaxGrit is built for Canadian CPA firms. It takes over the messy pre-filing stretch: client intake, chasing missing slips, and AI-assisted data extraction. Then it hands review-ready T1 and T2 files to the software you already use, like TaxCycle or ProFile. And your client data stays in Canada.

Try it free for 14 days, no credit card required, at taxgrit.com.

Similar to the last time we shared this matrix, the pay aspect is all normalized to account for cost of living differences. The sorting of firms into categories is based on the IPA ranking list of the Top 500 firms by revenue.

What I find most interesting here is how linear and clear cut the tradeoffs are. As you move down the firm-size tiers, base pay falls and hours fall with it, almost in lockstep. And job satisfaction is highest not at the top, but at the Top 100 tier and below.

I felt this personally in my Big 4 years. My dissatisfaction had nothing to do with the people, I worked with great teams. It came from the need for standardization at a firm of that size. At that scale, everyone at a given level is measured against the same yardstick, and there wasn't much room to lean into what I had a natural affinity for. I loved business development, process improvement, recruiting, training junior staff. All of that is high-value work for a firm, but none of it was on my evaluation metrics as a staff because of the need to manage by numbers at that scale.

I don’t even really blame the firm for it, I think that’s kind of unavoidable at a firm of that size. But it points at something smaller firms can do that larger ones structurally cannot. If you're a Top 100 firm competing against a Big 4 offer paying 7% more in base salary, individualized development is one of the few things you can offer that your competitor genuinely can't match at scale.

Which may be part of what this chart is picking up. But all that to say, there’s no perfect clear-cut answer here for what size of firm is the best, it’s all tradeoffs and the answer to what is best for you will depend heavily on what you prioritize at the current stage of life, I just hope insights like this can help people self-select into the right fit for themselves.

Are you looking for some of that small firm magic?

While we do support a few firms on the larger side with recruiting, Big 4 Transparency has a wonderful network of smaller firms as well that we work with, and the fact that they’re working with us means that they care about being competitive on compensation and prioritize the candidate experience more than most.

We’ve also partnered up to open up more opportunities for candidates in our talent pool at remote-first firms, and I can tell you one thing, they’re hungry for Tax and CAS talent right now.

Check out the Big 4 Transparency Talent Pool!