There is absolutely no way that it's the best place to work with RTO. I don't know who is filling out the survey but it has to be bots. And the people putting this on linked in are bootlickers.
9 replies (most recent on top)
CEO approval rating has dropped a lot
All of these are pay to play. You’re a fool if you think any of this is real.
ok @c3 - now scrape thelayoff dot com and run a sentiment analysis on each post. then let's talk about awards
I scraped reviews (2025 and 2026 to date) from Glassdoor and passed it through a LLM for analysis. Asked it to be neutral. Made reference to this thread. This is what I got....
=============
Fidelity Glassdoor reviews, 2025-2026: Ratings, leadership sentiment and RTO
A limited study of the supplied review export, focused on what the data can and cannot tell us about the discussion on this board. All review statistics below were calculated from that export. [1]
Scope and main finding
The file contains 18,653 reviews dated from June 2008 through September 14, 2026. This study focuses on 2,571 reviews: 1,580 from 2025 and 991 from 2026.
The main finding is not a collapse in overall ratings. Ratings remain close to 4 out of 5. However, CEO approval is lower in 2026, particularly among reviewers identifying themselves as current employees, and explicit return-to-office mentions have become more frequent.
These are findings about submitted reviews, not a representative survey of Fidelity's workforce. The export includes U.S., international and unspecified locations. Its completeness against the live Glassdoor database has not been independently verified.
The award and the current discussion cover different periods
Glassdoor lists Fidelity at rank 29 on its 2026 U.S. Best Places to Work list. Its published review window is October 17, 2024 through October 16, 2025. The award therefore does not measure reviews submitted in 2026. [2]
That timing matters: a 2026 award and deterioration in some 2026 review measures are not inherently contradictory. This study cannot reproduce the award ranking because it does not include the other employers' reviews or reproduce Glassdoor's ranking calculation.
A like-for-like comparison
The following table compares January 1 through September 14 in both years. Comparing all of 2025 with part of 2026 would introduce a seasonal mismatch.
| Measure | 2025, Jan 1-Sep 14 | 2026, Jan 1-Sep 14 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 1,154 | 991 |
| Overall rating, out of 5 | 4.03 | 3.99 |
| 4- or 5-star reviews | 74.8% | 73.8% |
| 1- or 2-star reviews | 10.1% | 10.8% |
| CEO approval | 85.6% (506/591) | 79.4% (392/494) |
| Would recommend to a friend | 77.8% (530/681) | 74.4% (427/574) |
| Positive business outlook | 76.8% (466/607) | 74.7% (393/526) |
For CEO approval, the denominator includes only APPROVE and DISAPPROVE responses. Blank entries and NO_OPINION are excluded. Recommendation excludes blanks. Positive business outlook includes positive, negative and neutral answers in its denominator. Fractions show positive answers divided by eligible responses.
Overall ratings are nearly unchanged, while CEO approval is down 6.3 percentage points and willingness to recommend is down 3.4 points. About three-quarters of reviews in both periods give four or five stars.
For context, the full-year 2025 average is 4.06. The matched-period 2025 average is 4.03. Neither figure should be confused with Glassdoor's displayed company score.
How ratings moved month by month
These are averages of reviews posted in each month, not historical snapshots of the score displayed on Glassdoor. CEO opinion counts are shown because that question receives fewer responses than the overall-rating question.
| Month | Reviews | Rating / 5 | CEO approval | CEO opinions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2025 | 141 | 4.06 | 82.7% | 81 |
| Feb 2025 | 117 | 4.02 | 84.1% | 63 |
| Mar 2025 | 152 | 3.87 | 79.5% | 78 |
| Apr 2025 | 171 | 4.08 | 89.2% | 102 |
| May 2025 | 111 | 3.86 | 84.6% | 52 |
| Jun 2025 | 120 | 3.84 | 79.2% | 48 |
| Jul 2025 | 145 | 4.26 | 91.8% | 73 |
| Aug 2025 | 121 | 4.18 | 95.0% | 60 |
| Sep 2025 | 144 | 4.08 | 83.8% | 68 |
| Oct 2025 | 139 | 4.14 | 87.9% | 66 |
| Nov 2025 | 116 | 4.07 | 86.5% | 52 |
| Dec 2025 | 103 | 4.24 | 95.8% | 48 |
| Jan 2026 | 126 | 4.06 | 83.3% | 60 |
| Feb 2026 | 91 | 3.90 | 85.4% | 41 |
| Mar 2026 | 86 | 4.20 | 87.5% | 40 |
| Apr 2026 | 98 | 4.19 | 88.9% | 45 |
| May 2026 | 153 | 3.88 | 67.9% | 81 |
| Jun 2026 | 131 | 3.85 | 71.9% | 64 |
| Jul 2026 | 131 | 4.00 | 74.2% | 66 |
| Aug 2026 | 118 | 4.10 | 89.3% | 56 |
| Sep 2026, through 14th | 57 | 3.72 | 78.0% | 41 |
The pattern is uneven, not a continuous decline. In 2025, ratings were weaker in March through June and stronger in July and August. In 2026, leadership approval fell during May through July, then rebounded in August.
Pooling reviews into three-month windows reduces some month-to-month noise:
- February-April 2026: 275 reviews, a 4.10 overall rating and 87.3% CEO approval, based on 126 opinions.
- May-July 2026: 415 reviews, a 3.91 overall rating and 71.1% CEO approval, based on 211 opinions.
- June-August 2026: 380 reviews, a 3.98 overall rating and 78.0% CEO approval, based on 186 opinions.
The final two windows overlap and are not independent comparisons. September 2026 includes only 57 reviews through the 14th. Its lower score should not be treated as a completed monthly result or a forecast.
The leadership decline is concentrated among current-employee reviewers
Using the same January 1-September 14 comparison:
| Reviewer status | 2025 CEO approval | 2026 CEO approval |
|---|---|---|
| Current employees | 88.9% (345/388) | 78.7% (277/352) |
| Former employees | 79.3% (161/203) | 81.0% (115/142) |
Among current-employee reviewers, the average overall rating also declined from 4.19 to 4.09. Among former-employee reviewers, it moved from 3.74 to 3.76.
This does not support an explanation that the overall CEO-approval decline is simply being driven by former employees. Current-employee reviewers show the larger decline. However, these are different groups of submissions, not the same people tracked across time.
What the category ratings show
The following averages use only answered category ratings. The number of answers is shown in parentheses. Both columns cover January 1-September 14.
| Category, out of 5 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Diversity & Inclusion | 4.16 (n=816) | 4.12 (n=681) |
| Culture & Values | 4.05 (n=834) | 3.92 (n=691) |
| Work Life Balance | 4.00 (n=832) | 3.91 (n=688) |
| Compensation & Benefits | 3.89 (n=843) | 3.86 (n=692) |
| Career Opportunities | 3.87 (n=833) | 3.83 (n=702) |
| Senior Management | 3.60 (n=825) | 3.47 (n=683) |
Senior Management is the lowest-rated category in both periods. Culture & Values and Senior Management show the largest numerical declines, approximately 0.13 points each. The category scores nevertheless remain above 3 out of 5. These comparisons are descriptive, not evidence that a particular policy caused the changes.
RTO is more visible in the written reviews
A narrow keyword scan looked for explicit references such as RTO, return to office and back to office in review titles, Pros, Cons and advice to management. Each review was counted once, regardless of how many times it used those terms.
In the matched January 1-September 14 periods, explicit RTO mentions rose from 24 of 1,154 reviews in 2025, or 2.1%, to 86 of 991 in 2026, or 8.7%.
Within 2026, the increase is concentrated after April: 8 of 401 reviews from January-April mentioned RTO, or 2.0%, compared with 78 of 590 from May-September 14, or 13.2%. Of the 86 matching 2026 reviews, 80 included an RTO reference in the Cons field.
The 86 reviews mentioning RTO averaged 3.10 stars, compared with 4.08 among the other 905 reviews. CEO approval was 31.9% among the RTO-mention group's 47 expressed opinions, versus 84.3% among 447 opinions in the other group.
That is an association, not a causal estimate. People dissatisfied with an office policy may be more likely to mention it, and the groups can differ in role, location and other characteristics. Reviews without an explicit RTO reference are not necessarily endorsements of office policy.
Importantly, 37 of the 86 RTO-mention reviews, or 43%, still awarded four or five stars. A reviewer can value the job overall while objecting to an office requirement. A high overall score does not mean there are no policy complaints.
The scan is deliberately narrow. It can miss comments that mention only hybrid work, commuting, work-from-home restrictions or connect weeks without using the selected RTO terms. It measures explicit mentions, not the full prevalence of RTO dissatisfaction.
Other recurring subjects provide context
The same matched-period comparison also finds the following keyword mentions:
| Text field and topic | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Benefits or retirement terms in Pros | 39.4% (455/1,154) | 44.3% (439/991) |
| Pay or compensation terms in Cons | 22.5% (260/1,154) | 21.1% (209/991) |
| Career or advancement terms in Cons | 10.8% (125/1,154) | 11.0% (109/991) |
Benefits-related language remains common in the Pros field, while pay and advancement language appears in the Cons field in both years. This helps explain how favorable ratings and specific complaints can coexist.
These are term counts, not a fully coded sentiment study. Placement in Pros or Cons supplies context, but it does not make every matching sentence an endorsement or complaint. Topics overlap, so percentages should not be added.
Checks relevant to the board discussion
Restricting the comparison to reviews with clearly identifiable U.S. locations gives the same broad direction: average ratings move from 4.04 to 3.99, while CEO approval moves from 85.8% to 80.2%. That subset contains 748 reviews in the matched 2025 period and 709 in 2026. The pattern is therefore not solely a result of pooling international and U.S. submissions.
The export contains no duplicate review IDs. That removes one straightforward double-counting concern, but it does not establish that every review is authentic or that every ID represents a different person. The file does not provide a reliable basis for concluding that positive reviews are bots, or for ruling manipulation out.
The file also does not contain verified ethnicity, visa status, hiring decisions or team rosters. Locations and job titles cannot establish those characteristics. Neither the review averages nor the Diversity & Inclusion rating can verify or refute allegations about specific hiring practices.
Similarly, review content cannot establish layoff headcount, identify which jobs are at risk or support a layoff forecast.
Method and limits
Each review receives equal weight. Category values of zero were treated as unanswered, not as genuine zero-star ratings. Optional responses were calculated using their own denominators, rather than dividing by every review.
Only about half of reviews in the matched periods express an approve/disapprove opinion about the CEO. As a sensitivity check, including NO_OPINION responses in the denominator lowers the approval levels but preserves the decline: 76.3% in 2025 versus 70.0% in 2026.
Monthly and three-month results use review posting dates. Three-month averages pool individual reviews and response counts; they do not average monthly percentages. Posting dates may differ from when the described experiences occurred.
Reviewers select themselves into the dataset, and the mix of roles, locations, current/former status and answered questions can change. These are descriptive patterns in an export, not causal estimates or workforce-wide approval rates. Displayed ratings are rounded to two decimals and percentages to one decimal unless otherwise indicated.
Bottom line
The evidence supports a mixed picture: overall reviews remain predominantly favorable, but leadership approval is weaker and explicit RTO criticism is more visible in 2026. The midyear deterioration is followed by an August rebound, rather than an uninterrupted slide.
The data do not establish that the award is fraudulent, that all employees are satisfied, or that the thread's hiring allegations are true. The most useful distinction is between an older award window, current overall job ratings and more specific dissatisfaction with leadership or office policy.
Sources
[1] Supplied Glassdoor review export: fidelity-investments-reviews-2026-09-16-201832.csv. Review data through September 14, 2026. All review counts, averages, percentages, keyword counts and subgroup comparisons above are calculations from this file.
[2] Glassdoor, Best Places to Work 2026, United States. Used to verify Fidelity's rank and the published review window:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Award/Best-Places-to-Work-LST_KQ0,19.htm
We have plenty of diversity at Fidelity: kannadigas, telegus, and tamils! What more could you want?
@ax - legit question - what was the ethnicity?
@as okay...can we talk about this for a minute?
I've worked here 16 years and been fortunate enough to always have diversity on my teams. My last connect week I was on a new floor, around a few new teams and noticed at least two of these teams were filled with only one ethnicity...how? I know the current admin is trying to erase DEI but they couldn't have put these teams together that quickly.
Its the best place to work if you are on H1B and you are from the same village as your manager
While I absolutely agree with you, also consider the company kept on that list and the fact that slots number one and two are a car wash and a burger joint, and Fid is all the way down at 29. It's not an elusive award by any means.