When are Meta performance reviews? (2026)
Meta runs a peer-heavy assessment where measured impact is the currency and both direct and indirect contribution count. Dates vary, so keep a record with numbers attached and the peers who can corroborate them.
Twice a year
No specific review month is published for this company, because none could be sourced from the company's own material. What follows is the cycle shape, which is what is actually knowable. Your own manager is the authority on this year's dates.
How the cycle works
Assessment here leans heavily on peer input. Colleagues you worked with write about your contribution, and those write-ups are a primary input rather than a supporting one. The practical consequence is that people who work visibly across team boundaries accumulate more corroboration than people who do excellent work inside one, which is worth knowing in advance rather than discovering afterward.
Impact is the organizing word, and it is used with a specific split: direct impact, meaning what you personally moved, and indirect impact, meaning what moved because of infrastructure, tooling or unblocking you provided to others. Both count, but they need to be claimed differently. Indirect impact is invisible unless you name the teams that benefited.
The company is instrumented to an unusual degree, so unquantified claims stand out. If a change shipped, there is almost always a number attached to it somewhere, and not knowing that number reads as not having followed through.
Cycle timing has varied over the years and differs by organization. Get your dates from your manager.
What actually gets weighed
Measured product impact leads. A shipped surface with a metric movement attached, at the scale this company operates, is the clearest possible evidence.
Infrastructure and internal-tooling work is evaluated on multiplied effect: how many engineers got faster, how much build time went away, how many incidents stopped happening. Present it as the aggregate, not as the individual improvement.
Speed matters, but paired with judgment about what to ship fast and what to be careful with. Anything touching integrity, safety or privacy is judged on care rather than velocity, and mixing up which mode a project is in is a real error.
Peer corroboration is the fourth axis and the one most under your control before the cycle: work visibly, hand things off cleanly, and the write-ups take care of themselves.
What to have ready
- Direct impact with the metric, the baseline, and the measurement window.
- Indirect impact expressed as an aggregate across the teams that consumed your work.
- The peers best positioned to describe something difficult you resolved.
- Anything you shipped in the careful-mode categories, framed on the care rather than the speed.
- Projects you stopped or descoped, with the reasoning, since judgment about what not to build is part of the assessment.