Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Amex, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
I went through a clearly technical, higher-difficulty loop that felt centered on real engineering depth rather than just interview basics. After the recruiter stage, I ended up in technical rounds that were strongly focused on Kafka, Go, and microservices, with architecture and design questions layered on top. The conversations felt like they were trying to gauge whether I could think through system design and operational realities, not just write code.
I started with an online application, then an initial assessment followed by a HireVue video interview. The HireVue portion leaned heavily into competency questions—leadership, teamwork, problem-solving, and why I was motivated to join. What stuck with me was how clearly everything was communicated: I always knew what the next step was, and the whole thing felt more structured and transparent than intimidating.
The interview process typically begins with a recruiter screen, followed by a series of technical and behavioral rounds that may include coding challenges, system design discussions, and assessments of past experiences. Candidates noted that the timeline was generally efficient, but some experienced delays in feedback and uncertainty about next steps.
Interviews often emphasized a strong technical foundation, with a focus on data structures, algorithms, and specific programming languages like Java and Python. Candidates faced a mix of coding problems, system design questions, and discussions about their previous projects, reflecting a high bar for technical competency.
Behavioral interviews were integrated throughout the process, focusing on teamwork, leadership, and problem-solving skills. Candidates were encouraged to use structured frameworks like STAR to articulate their experiences and motivations for joining the company.
Candidates encountered a range of coding challenges, from easy to medium difficulty, often requiring them to explain their thought process while solving problems. The interviews aimed to assess not just correctness but also clarity in reasoning and adaptability to changing requirements.
Some candidates experienced panel interviews where multiple interviewers assessed them simultaneously, leading to a fast-paced and demanding environment. The interaction style varied, with some candidates noting difficulties in communication or rapport building due to interviewer accents or pacing.
The overall difficulty of the interviews was perceived as medium to high, with candidates reflecting on the need for strong preparation across technical and behavioral aspects. Many noted that despite feeling well-prepared, the final decision often felt unpredictable and outside their control.