In my experience, Solutions Architects are on the services side, while Architect (no modifier) are on the engineering side. Solutions Architects put together customer specific solutions from a suite of technologies, while Architects are responsible for the general development and maintenance of said technologies. Solutions Architects may also work directly for the company that build the technology, or as partner who offers services and expertise.
They are completely different roles with different tracts.
This is my experience as well. A solutions architect is likely to be working directly with customers to achieve what they want with the product which can involve deployment work, integration work, etc. Sometimes this work is found to be repeatable across customers and may be engineered into the product. An architect (in a software or IT context) can have pretty widely varying responsibilities, usually more focused on building product or internal company environments. But solution architects have been fairly consistent in scope of responsibility across the companies I’ve been exposed to
And, fwiw, I know several people who work on the services side and it seems like a never ending deluge of tight deadlines and one-off work that doesn't add up to deep expertise like an engineering role would. It's like sprinting a slightly different race month after month: you work hard but never learn the course or how to run it better next time.
Would be interested to hear if any solutions engineers have a different perspective.
No, I'd agree with this. Your AEs / clients always want it done as fast and cheap as possible. I enjoy the variety of problems and clients, and honestly sometimes find working with our SWEs a bit pedantic. I have a Get Shit Done attitude.
I would say, the top maybe 5% of Sales Engineers/SAs (whatever you call them) do have a very deep expertise in one area and those are the folks who are trusted to get a deal done. I've done defense tech, adtech, and now databases. I've been the time to really go deep on databases and that's what I'm building my career around now.
That is great to hear! Sounds like you were able to compound experience by focusing on an area that is applicable across many companies.
The people I know got stuck doing customer conversions for an idiosyncratic power distribution management system. They learned some tricks to do conversions more efficiently, but they had very little experience they could carry to the next company (so they kept grinding many years for less than $70k / year)
The title 'Solutions Architect' and 'Architect' can often be used interchangeably in the tech industry, but there can be subtle differences depending on the company and its structure. Generally speaking, a 'Solutions Architect' often implies a role that is more focused on designing specific solutions for specific business problems, often working closely with clients or stakeholders. An 'Architect', on the other hand, may have a more overarching role, looking at system design and architecture at a higher level, and may not be as tied to specific solutions.
As for which is more robust or higher-paying, that can depend greatly on the specific job, the company, the industry, and the geographical location. It's also important to note that job titles can sometimes be misleading, and the actual responsibilities and compensation can vary greatly. Therefore, it's always a good idea to look at the job description and responsibilities, and to ask about compensation during the interview process. Also, websites like Glassdoor or Payscale can provide some insight into average salaries for these roles in different locations and industries.
In my experience solution architects are client facing and work with external partners on business solutions. Whereas architects are within engineering and responsible for the internal tech / system.
What's more robust or higher paying generally probably doesn't matter as much as what you are more suited for.
In my experience, Solutions Architects are on the services side, while Architect (no modifier) are on the engineering side. Solutions Architects put together customer specific solutions from a suite of technologies, while Architects are responsible for the general development and maintenance of said technologies. Solutions Architects may also work directly for the company that build the technology, or as partner who offers services and expertise.
They are completely different roles with different tracts.
This is my experience as well. A solutions architect is likely to be working directly with customers to achieve what they want with the product which can involve deployment work, integration work, etc. Sometimes this work is found to be repeatable across customers and may be engineered into the product. An architect (in a software or IT context) can have pretty widely varying responsibilities, usually more focused on building product or internal company environments. But solution architects have been fairly consistent in scope of responsibility across the companies I’ve been exposed to
Agreed.
And, fwiw, I know several people who work on the services side and it seems like a never ending deluge of tight deadlines and one-off work that doesn't add up to deep expertise like an engineering role would. It's like sprinting a slightly different race month after month: you work hard but never learn the course or how to run it better next time.
Would be interested to hear if any solutions engineers have a different perspective.
No, I'd agree with this. Your AEs / clients always want it done as fast and cheap as possible. I enjoy the variety of problems and clients, and honestly sometimes find working with our SWEs a bit pedantic. I have a Get Shit Done attitude.
I would say, the top maybe 5% of Sales Engineers/SAs (whatever you call them) do have a very deep expertise in one area and those are the folks who are trusted to get a deal done. I've done defense tech, adtech, and now databases. I've been the time to really go deep on databases and that's what I'm building my career around now.
That is great to hear! Sounds like you were able to compound experience by focusing on an area that is applicable across many companies.
The people I know got stuck doing customer conversions for an idiosyncratic power distribution management system. They learned some tricks to do conversions more efficiently, but they had very little experience they could carry to the next company (so they kept grinding many years for less than $70k / year)
They’re just titles. They may perform the exact same job.
Salary will be locale-specific. Asking here won’t be helpful to your personal situation.
This is correct. Solutions architect may be related to sales or it may have nothing to do with it at all.
That's my limited experience as well
The title 'Solutions Architect' and 'Architect' can often be used interchangeably in the tech industry, but there can be subtle differences depending on the company and its structure. Generally speaking, a 'Solutions Architect' often implies a role that is more focused on designing specific solutions for specific business problems, often working closely with clients or stakeholders. An 'Architect', on the other hand, may have a more overarching role, looking at system design and architecture at a higher level, and may not be as tied to specific solutions.
As for which is more robust or higher-paying, that can depend greatly on the specific job, the company, the industry, and the geographical location. It's also important to note that job titles can sometimes be misleading, and the actual responsibilities and compensation can vary greatly. Therefore, it's always a good idea to look at the job description and responsibilities, and to ask about compensation during the interview process. Also, websites like Glassdoor or Payscale can provide some insight into average salaries for these roles in different locations and industries.
Get this AI crap out of here.
In my experience solution architects are client facing and work with external partners on business solutions. Whereas architects are within engineering and responsible for the internal tech / system.
What's more robust or higher paying generally probably doesn't matter as much as what you are more suited for.
I would expect Solutions Architect might have pay tied to sales commission. And sales commissions can be boom or bust.
"Solutions" = sales or sales adjacent.
I've never seen a title of "architect" at any of the companies I've worked at in the past fifteen years.
Fortune 500 companies tend to have them. I saw one at Godaddy and IBM
I had architect roles in a place with IT below 300 people.
And it still lacked dedicated solution architecture and at least some dedicated Enterprise Architecture.
These titles are just... titles. No meaning until you know what the particular team does.