Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Canonical, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My journey started with a huge questionnaire that went far beyond normal “background” info and leaned heavily on high-school performance details, like grades in English and math and leadership-style questions. I ended up spending pages on it, feeling like the scope didn’t match the seniority of the role. After that, I took an aptitude/behavioral GIA-style test with quick reaction and mental-calculation tasks, which was over fast.
I went through an interview flow that started with a written, school-like questionnaire and then moved into aptitude testing. After that, I had multiple live stages and a few different kinds of conversations, including something peer-like and later a technical discussion with a team member. Even though each segment felt manageable on its own, the overall structure stretched out in a way that made the whole thing feel impersonal.
Candidates often start with a lengthy written questionnaire that includes personal history and academic details, which can feel overly extensive for the role's seniority. This stage is time-consuming and may not provide clear feedback or engagement from the company.
Following the written stage, candidates typically undergo various technical assessments, including coding challenges and system design discussions. These assessments often focus on specific technologies like Python, Linux, and full-stack development, but can be hindered by platform issues or lack of clear evaluation criteria.
Candidates may also face cognitive or psychometric tests, which assess reasoning and problem-solving abilities. These tests can feel disconnected from the technical skills relevant to the role and may add to the overall length of the process.
The interview process is often described as lengthy and multi-staged, with candidates experiencing a lack of clear communication and feedback throughout. Many report feeling like they are stuck in a loop of repeated questions and assessments without a clear path to closure.
Candidates frequently engage in discussions aimed at assessing behavioral fit and collaboration skills, often with multiple interviewers across different levels. These conversations can feel impersonal and may not align closely with technical evaluations.
Many candidates express frustration with the overall experience, citing a lack of meaningful engagement and abrupt rejections after significant effort. The process can feel like a test of endurance rather than a fair evaluation of skills, leading to a negative impression of the company.