Google — Engineering Performance
95 engineers now deliver what 283 would have in Q1 2025.
Performance snapshot
Today's rolling 90-day reading for Google, compared with the start of the series. Pick a window to move that comparison point.
Avg. perf / dev / mo
+198.4%
0.94 → 2.80 ETV
Active engineers
−3.1%
98.0 → 95.0
Features
+2.5pp
28.3% → 30.8%
vs. 500 OSS index
0.73x
1.0x → 0.73x · −27% below
Engineering capacity
Effective engineers behind Google, against its pre-AI baseline. Each subject has its own: Google's is 0.94 ETV / dev / mo, its first reading in Q1 2025. Per-engineer ETV divided by that gives a capacity multiple, and that multiple applied to the engineers active in the trailing 90 days turns it into engineer-equivalents. The line is the real headcount, so the gap between line and area is what the leverage is worth. Because each baseline is its own, every subject opens at 1.0x on its first day: multiples measure improvement and are not comparable between subjects.
Google vs. 500 OSS Performance Index
Per-engineer ETV for Google against the pooled 500 OSS Performance Index. Both lines are 90-day rolling averages scaled to a 30-day month, so they share one axis and can be read against each other at any point. Pick a window to zoom the chart to it. Latest reading: Google is 27% below the index (2.80 vs 3.85 ETV/dev/mo). At the start of the tracked period the gap was 2% above.
Behind the numbers
Written summary of the work completed each month.
During August 2026, the team completed key deliverables around LLM context compaction and Graphite GPU transfer optimizations across 612 commits. Total output surged to 211 points (+49% above the 5-month average of 142), marking a genuine step up over the multi-month average and recent months. Testing and bug-fixing efforts saw candidate-material increases, with Tests scoring 73 (+55% vs. 47 5-month average) and Fixes reaching 50 (+161% vs. 19 5-month average).
Highlights
- Introduced comprehensive context compaction support across sliding-window and mid-invocation token threshold strategies in 96f795c5 (João), 664cec63 (João), and e9da6686 (João).
- Added Django 6.0 compatibility with composite primary key and covering index support to
django-google-spannerin 207d9472 (Sakthivel). - Implemented major Graphite GPU backend optimizations including
kIgnoreSrcandkForceOpaqueextended transfer operations to bypass the raster pipeline in dcb5bfc7 (Michael) and c8df9327 (Michael). - Shipped critical authentication security hardening to eliminate OAuth client secret leakage in client payloads and credential events via fdfa4b11 (George) and 393b3b0d (George).
- Enabled multi-turn nested Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) pause and resumption in agent flows via 6d145180 (Shangjie).
Observations
- Fixes score surged +161% to 50 compared to the 19 5-month average, driven by widespread stability patches across agent communication 04be48b2 (George), telemetry hygiene 5d965c33 (George), and OpenAPI timeout bounding 5d0bd5f6 (George).
- Tests score increased +55% to 73 compared to the 47 5-month average, with heavy integration test suites added for LLM context compaction cb612ec5 (João) and session conformance 5b62af7b (João).
- Docs score reached 11 (+50% compared to the 7 5-month average), reflecting documentation cleanups such as ErrorProne Javadoc updates in b3346e38 (cpovirk).
- Extensive refactoring took place in the
google/adktool and typing subsystems to support strict mypy compliance across base classes in dc99a581 (George) and d84277df (George). - Memory and architecture optimizations eliminated collection view caching in Guava 32ba16fc (cpovirk) and restricted value type caching references in f516e758 (cpovirk).
Based on 612 commits127.6 ETVUpdated Sep 30, 2026, 4:01 PM
Repositories
Where each repository stands: average performance per engineer per month over the last 90 days, with the rolling 90-day curve behind it. The range picks the window (past 90d): it sets how much of the curve you see, the Δ across it, and the span the work mix is measured over. Ranked highest first.
zerocopy
Avg performance
14.23 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
+920.1%
Work mix
Features
53%
Maint
4%
Tests
19%
Docs
21%
Fixes
3%
adk-python
Avg performance
4.77 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
+299.8%
Work mix
Features
9%
Maint
12%
Tests
42%
Docs
6%
Fixes
32%
google-cloud-python
Avg performance
3.82 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
-18.3%
Work mix
Features
41%
Maint
16%
Tests
38%
Docs
4%
Fixes
2%
perfetto
Avg performance
2.90 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
+41.9%
Work mix
Features
39%
Maint
21%
Tests
25%
Docs
5%
Fixes
10%
guava
Avg performance
2.31 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
-59.9%
Work mix
Features
1%
Maint
46%
Tests
36%
Docs
2%
Fixes
16%
syzkaller
Avg performance
1.83 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
-29.3%
Work mix
Features
28%
Maint
13%
Tests
23%
Docs
2%
Fixes
35%
adk-go
Avg performance
1.68 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
+113.9%
Work mix
Features
31%
Maint
1%
Tests
60%
Docs
5%
Fixes
3%
skia
Avg performance
1.15 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
±0%
Work mix
Features
29%
Maint
22%
Tests
17%
Docs
2%
Fixes
30%
google-cloud-go
Avg performance
0.85 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
-7.5%
Work mix
Features
30%
Maint
9%
Tests
46%
Docs
6%
Fixes
9%
go-github
Avg performance
0.69 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
-5.9%
Work mix
Features
31%
Maint
9%
Tests
36%
Docs
6%
Fixes
18%
python-genai
Avg performance
0.21 ETV
per engineer per month
Avg. dev performance / month (90-day MA)
-35.9%
Work mix
Features
38%
Maint
1%
Tests
49%
Docs
4%
Fixes
8%
Performance Composition
Each month's output split by type of work: Features (new value), Maintenance (sustaining systems), Tests, Docs, and Fixes (rework). The yellow line is output per engineer, so when it rises each engineer is delivering more, whatever the team size did. Unit: Engineering Throughput Value (ETV).
Cost per Performance Unit
−66%
If performance per engineer more than doubled, each unit of engineering performance now costs approximately 66% less than at the baseline 90-day window (ending 2025-04-01). Treat this as a direction, not a price: the exact figure depends on fully-loaded engineer cost, but which way it moved is not in doubt.
Effective Capacity Added
+188 engineers
At today's productivity, the current 95-person team delivers the performance equivalent of 283 engineers at the baseline 90-day rolling window (ending 2025-04-01). That's roughly 188 engineers worth of capacity added through productivity gains, not hiring.
CapEx vs OpEx
Each month's work split two ways. CapEx (capitalizable investment) is the work that builds the asset: Features, plus the Tests that prove it works and the Docs that explain it. OpEx (operating expense) is keeping it running: Maintenance and Fixes. The yellow line is the CapEx share, so a rising line means more of the month went into building new rather than sustaining what exists. Unit: Engineering Throughput Value (ETV).
Hours per Repository
Trailing 90-day window (64 working days). Org-level capacity is allocated to each repo by its share of org performance, then split CapEx / OpEx by that repo's own Features + Tests + Docs vs Maintenance + Fixes mix.
- CapEx %
- 96.1%
- OpEx %
- 3.9%
- CapEx %
- 92.6%
- OpEx %
- 7.4%
- CapEx %
- 91.2%
- OpEx %
- 8.8%
- CapEx %
- 82.0%
- OpEx %
- 18.0%
- CapEx %
- 81.5%
- OpEx %
- 18.5%
- CapEx %
- 72.7%
- OpEx %
- 27.3%
- CapEx %
- 68.8%
- OpEx %
- 31.2%
- CapEx %
- 56.2%
- OpEx %
- 43.8%
- CapEx %
- 51.8%
- OpEx %
- 48.2%
- CapEx %
- 48.1%
- OpEx %
- 51.9%
- CapEx %
- 38.5%
- OpEx %
- 61.5%
- CapEx %
- 70.2%
- OpEx %
- 29.8%
Feature Contribution
Who shipped each month's new feature work, as a share of that month's total. Bands of similar width mean new value is coming from across the team; one band that stays wide means most of it rests on the same person. Named engineers shipped the most Features over the period. Everyone else is grouped as Others.
Quarterly Summary
Engineers and the Features / Maintenance / Tests / Docs / Fixes mix for each quarter. Cost / Perf Unit is what one unit of performance costs against Q2'25. Engineers vs headcount is measured against this org's own pre-AI baseline instead, its first reading in the index, so it agrees with the capacity tile and chart above.
- Engineers
- 119
- Cost / Perf Unit
- 0%
- Engineers vs headcount
- −6 engineers
- Work mix
- 34% Features
- Engineers
- 126
- Cost / Perf Unit
- −6%
- Engineers vs headcount
- 0 engineers
- Work mix
- 31% Features
- Engineers
- 136
- Cost / Perf Unit
- −20%
- Engineers vs headcount
- +26 engineers
- Work mix
- 34% Features
- Engineers
- 130
- Cost / Perf Unit
- −50%
- Engineers vs headcount
- +116 engineers
- Work mix
- 37% Features
- Engineers
- 107
- Cost / Perf Unit
- −58%
- Engineers vs headcount
- +134 engineers
- Work mix
- 35% Features