Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Cleartrip, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My process felt unusually messy for how structured it was on paper. I first went through a coding exercise that was tied to a live, real-world problem: I had a couple of hours to implement a service, and then there was an additional approval-oriented round for that work.
I started with an online DSA coding round where the problems leaned on common themes: string manipulation, dynamic programming, and graph-style questions. After I got through that, the next step was a face-to-face coding round plus a managerial-style interview. That in-person coding round covered a similar mix—trees, arrays, dynamic programming, and graphs—so it felt like they were probing whether I could keep my approach consistent under a more focused, real-time setting.
Most candidates begin with an online assessment focused on data structures and algorithms (DSA), often featuring medium to hard problems. The subsequent technical interviews typically reinforce DSA themes, probing candidates on string manipulation, dynamic programming, and graph-related questions.
Candidates frequently encounter a machine coding round where they must implement a solution within a set timeframe, often tied to real-world scenarios. This is typically followed by low-level design discussions that assess their understanding of architecture and design principles.
A significant portion of the interview process includes a system design round, where candidates are expected to discuss scalable solutions and architectural decisions, often delving into both high-level and low-level design considerations.
The final stages often involve a managerial round focusing on past projects and a cultural fit discussion, followed by an HR round that covers compensation and joining timelines. Candidates noted that the managerial discussions can vary in tone and depth.
Several candidates reported logistical challenges, such as delays in scheduling or lack of follow-up after interviews, which contributed to a frustrating experience. These issues often overshadowed the technical evaluations themselves.
While many candidates found the interview process structured, there were mixed feelings about the fairness and professionalism of the experience, especially regarding how decisions were communicated and the perceived disconnect between performance and outcomes.