A toxic mess - Software Developer Wallester Employee Review

I worked at Wallester for three and a half years during an important growth stage of the company, and it became a very valuable professional experience for me. Working in a fast-growing fintech environment gave me the opportunity to gain strong hands-on experience and contribute to real business initiatives with visible impact. One of the biggest strengths of Wallester is its people. I had the chance to work with many talented, motivated, and supportive colleagues across different teams, which made collaboration enjoyable and productive even during busy periods. The environment encourages learning through practice, and over time responsibilities naturally expanded, allowing employees to develop new skills and gain broader business exposure. The company operates in an exciting and competitive fintech space, providing exposure to real market challenges and opportunities to work closely with different teams across the organization. This created valuable experience in cross-functional collaboration within a scaling company. Overall, Wallester offers a dynamic environment where professionals can grow together with the company, gain practical experience, and be part of building and improving products and processes during an active phase of development.

As in many fast-growing companies, priorities can sometimes change, which requires flexibility and quick adaptation. Some internal processes and cross-team coordination are still developing as the company continues to scale.

1. Convenient office location in the center of Tallinn 2. English language courses

-No growth opportunities -Lack of trust (many tasks are inaccessible to the team entirely), and QA is not involved in meetings about new features during the development stage -Weak interaction within the QA team; the team often learns about important details of new or changed functionality last, or even after testing or environment preparation has already been done -Lack of respect for the QA team’s work -Familiarity, violation of professional boundaries, and use of obscene language -Strict time tracking down to the minute — even 1–2 minute delays are unacceptable; a “clock-in, clock-out” factory-like approach -Remote work is not approved (“no one works on remote” — according to the lead) -Low competence of people in leadership positions; -imposed training with mandatory reporting via presentations -Initiative is encouraged in theory but discouraged in practice -Team members are involved in testing merchandise -Proposal to switch to a dedicated merchandise testing role (if for QA position is not valued or there is no work) was rejected — instead, it is expected to be combined with QA tasks -Personal remarks and demonstration of personal bases