Why does the cliff matter so much for jobhop math?

Tech offers are usually structured 50–65% cash (base + bonus) and 35–50% equity (RSU vesting over 4 years). Equity cliffs at 12 months mean year 1 you only earn the cash portion. A $400K TC with 60% cash ratio gives you $240K in year 1, ramping to $400K by year 2. If your current TC is $300K, you've actually taken a $60K pay cut for the privilege of starting over. Most '+35% offers' don't move year 1 take-home — they move years 2–4.

How honest should I be about my chance of landing the offer?

More honest than feels comfortable. Most engineers overestimate by 20–30% when they want to leave. The reality: with strong recent performance reviews + active recruiter outreach for your specific level, 70–80% is realistic. Cold market or lukewarm referrals: 40–60%. Targeting a level above your current (e.g., L5 trying for L6 at FAANG): 30–50%. Run the EV at your honest probability and at -15% from that — if both still favor jobhop, the math is solid; if one flips, you're in coin-flip territory.

Should I always wait for the promo if it's coming soon?

No — the promo bump is usually capped at 15–25%, while jobhop bumps clear 30%+ even at the same level. The break-even-bump output of the calculator is the diagnostic: if your real offer beats the break-even, jobhop math wins on EV even with the cliff penalty. The bigger question isn't math, it's whether you actually want to leave: scope, manager, culture, learning trajectory. Math should rule out clearly bad moves, not make career decisions.

What about the 'new RSU refresh' that kicks in at year 4?

Real concern. Initial grants often vest 4 years; year 5 onwards, you're at base + bonus + refresh grants, which are typically 30–40% of original grant size. Companies front-load joining grants. This makes year 5+ TC at the new job lower than the headline number suggests. The promo path avoids this because tenure doesn't reset. If your projection is 5+ years, factor in a 10–15% TC compression in year 5 at the new job — the calculator doesn't model this explicitly but it's worth a second pass with your projection set to 7 years to see how the math shifts.

The +35% Job Hop That's Actually +12% in Year 1 (the Cliff Tax)

The Recruiter’s Pitch and the Reality

A recruiter calls. “We can offer you $400K total comp at L6 — that’s a 35% bump from where you are.” You’re at $300K, expecting an internal promo to L6 in 12 months at +20%. The pitch sounds obvious.

We ran the math on Sarah’s actual situation.

Path A: Wait for promo (12 months)	Path B: Jobhop now
Year 1: $300K	Year 1: $300K × 3mo / 12 + $400K × 60% × 9mo / 12 = $255K
Years 2–5: $360K	Years 2–5: $400K
5y total: $1,740K	5y total: $1,855K (success) / $1,740K (fail) → EV at 80%: $1,832K

The +35% offer beats the +20% promo on EV by $92K over 5 years. Not nothing, but a long way from “+35%”. Year 1 specifically, Sarah earns less than she would have at her current job — she’s eating a $45K paper cut for an offer that ends up paying off.

Where the Cliff Tax Comes From

Tech compensation is bimodal. About 60% of TC at FAANG is cash (base + bonus). The other 40% is RSU, vesting quarterly after a 12-month cliff.

Year 1 at a new job:

Cash portion: paid normally, typically 25% on a 4-year vest schedule that hasn’t started yet
RSU portion: completely zero until month 12, when 25% drops, then quarterly

Year 2 onwards:

Full TC realized

This is structural, not negotiable in most cases. The headline TC number recruiters quote is years 2–4 average. Year 1 is always lower for the standard vest pattern.

The exception is signing bonuses — many companies fill the cliff with a $30–80K signing bonus for senior roles, which moves year 1 closer to the headline number. The calculator doesn’t model sign-on directly, but you can fold it into the cash ratio: a $50K sign-on on a $400K TC effectively raises year-1 cash from 60% to 73%.

Where this scenario doesn’t apply

The framework above assumes a standard 4-year vest with 12-month cliff. Counter-examples worth flagging:

Front-loaded vest schedules. Some companies offer 50% in year 1, 25% in year 2, etc. If your offer has this structure, the cliff penalty disappears and the headline TC is closer to actual year 1.
Sign-on bonuses that fill the gap. $50–100K sign-on at staff+ levels is common. Adjust the cash ratio upward to model this — 50% sign-on on a $300K offer is roughly equivalent to 17% extra cash in year 1.
Public-company offers without cliff. A few public companies (esp. mid-cap with smaller equity components) ditch the cliff entirely. Verify in writing — recruiters get this wrong half the time.
Non-equity-heavy companies. If the new job is 80%+ cash (consulting firms, some hedge funds, well-paid government contractors), the cliff barely matters. Set cash ratio to 85–95%.
Very-late-stage startups in pre-IPO holding pattern. RSU may have valuation uncertainty (no liquid market) for several years, making the “TC” number speculative regardless of cliff. Discount aggressively.

The Honesty Correction on Probability

Most engineers overestimate landing probability when they want to leave. The reasons are emotional, not analytical: dissatisfaction makes you confident, recruiters reinforce confidence to keep you engaged, and you don’t get feedback on missed offers because the rejection itself is information-poor.

A realistic probability calibration:

Situation	Honest probability
Strong perf reviews, active recruiter outreach, same level	70–85%
Strong perf reviews, lukewarm market, same level	50–70%
Strong perf reviews, targeting one level above (L5 → L6 at FAANG)	30–50%
Mixed reviews, cold market	20–40%
Targeting two levels above (L5 → Staff at startup)	15–30%

If you’re at 60% probability, run the EV at 45% and 75%. If both still favor jobhop, the math is robust. If 45% flips it to “stay,” you’re in a sensitive zone where one bad interview ruins the math — protect downside by quietly shopping while staying.

What 5-Year Pictures Actually Look Like

We modeled three common scenarios:

Scenario 1: Solid promo path, decent external offer

Current TC: $280K
Promo in 12mo at +20%
External offer +30% at 75% probability
Cash ratio 60%
Result: jobhop EV $1.7M vs promo $1.7M — coin flip on math, decide on non-money factors

Scenario 2: Long promo wait, aggressive external offer

Current TC: $260K
Promo in 24mo at +18%
External offer +45% at 80% probability
Cash ratio 60%
Result: jobhop EV $1.7M vs promo $1.4M — jobhop wins by $300K, math is decisive

Scenario 3: Imminent promo, modest external offer

Current TC: $320K
Promo in 6mo at +25%
External offer +25% at 70% probability
Cash ratio 55%
Result: promo wins by $80K — wait the 6 months

The pattern: long promo waits + aggressive external bumps favor jumping; imminent promos + modest external bumps favor staying. The interesting band is the middle — 12mo promo at +20% vs +30–35% external offer — where the math is close enough that non-financial factors should drive the call.

What this calculator doesn’t model

Year 5+ refresh dynamics. Initial grant ends at year 4; refreshes are smaller. The calculator assumes static TC at endpoint; reality compresses 10–15% in year 5+.
Investment compounding. $50K of extra income in year 1 invested at 7% becomes $70K by year 5. Important if your projection is long.
Non-financial factors. Manager quality, scope, learning, prestige, location — these often swamp the financial delta. Use the math to rule out clearly bad moves, not to decide.
Stay penalty if you don’t get the promo. We assume you do get the promo at month X. Real promo cycles miss; calibration meetings get pushed; new managers reset the clock. Discount your promo probability if you’ve been “next cycle” for 18+ months.
Equity at the new company outcomes. Public-company RSU is liquid; private-startup options aren’t. We treat all equity at face value. If the new job is a private startup, mentally discount RSU by 30–50% for liquidity and survival risk.

What to actually do

Run the calculator with honest numbers. Especially: a probability you’d defend to your spouse, a cash ratio that matches the actual offer structure, a promo timeline your manager would actually commit to in writing.
Compare break-even bump to your real offer. If your offer is below break-even, the math says stay even before non-financial factors. If above, the math is supportive but not decisive.
Run sensitivity at ±15% probability. If both ends still favor jobhop, the math is robust. If they flip, protect the downside (quietly interview while staying employed).
Negotiate sign-on aggressively. $50–80K sign-on can fully offset year 1 cliff penalty. This is the single highest-leverage negotiation move and gets ignored most often.
Don’t decide on the math alone. Money matters but rarely flips a career decision the right way. Use this as a sanity check — “is the offer at least worth the disruption?” — not as the deciding voice.

Open the Promo vs Job Hop calculator → and run your specific numbers. Pair it with the Tech TC Breakdown calculator to set your inputs from real comp structure, and the RSU Vesting + Cliff Trap tool to see what you’re forfeiting at the current job by leaving early.