Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Product Manager at Agoda, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After an initial recruiter screen, the process moved into multiple product-focused rounds with product leaders. I remember that I didn’t meet people I would actually work with day to day; instead it felt designed around product and company fit more than a deep technical drill. By the time I reached later stages, the scheduling made it clear there would be several interviews with different decision-makers, and the structure was pretty standardized.
I got contacted through LinkedIn and asked to apply, and after I sent my CV I still ended up doing an aptitude-style SHL screen even though the application path showed a rejection. The test itself felt strangely misaligned with the PM work. It was more about speed than reasoning: either rush and risk accuracy, or go slower for precision and lose points for not finishing everything. I intentionally chose the slower approach because in a business context I’d rather be accurate than produce sloppy answers quickly—but the scoring didn’t reward that logic.
The interview process typically starts with a recruiter screen followed by an aptitude-style SHL test, which has been described as misaligned with product management tasks, focusing more on speed than reasoning. Candidates reported technical issues with the test portal, leading to frustration and confusion.
Candidates experienced multiple rounds of interviews with product leaders, emphasizing product fit and data-driven thinking rather than deep technical drills. The interviews included case studies where candidates had to demonstrate their product reasoning and communication skills.
The interview process is generally organized and methodical, spanning several weeks with a clear structure that includes both behavioral and case-style questions. Candidates appreciated the transparency and feedback provided throughout the stages.
Throughout the interviews, there was a strong focus on data-centric questions and how candidates reason through product problems, requiring clarity and structured thinking. Candidates noted that this expectation was crucial for success in the interviews.
Candidates faced a final assessment stage that included personality and aptitude tests, which seemed disconnected from earlier conversational evaluations. Many felt that the impersonal nature of this stage overshadowed their performance in prior interviews.
Several candidates reported issues with scheduling and communication throughout the process, including missed appointments and unclear cancellations, which contributed to a negative overall experience. This instability often led candidates to withdraw from the process.