Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for QA Engineer at Disney+HotStar, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After an HR call, my process moved into a set of interview steps that included a take-home assignment and then a couple of in-person/video conversations. The first part involved running/testing a specific set of tests on Hotstar using Selenium and JavaScript, and I passed.
After an initial recruiter call, I ended up going through a pretty full sequence of interviews over Skype, plus a few later steps. Roughly a week later, I had a technical screen that flowed into an on-site HackerEarth coding round with a single programming question. From there, I had two technical rounds and then moved into a hiring manager discussion, followed by a higher-level VP round. After that, there was a debrief and then an HR round.
The interview process typically follows a structured sequence starting with an HR screening, followed by multiple technical rounds including coding and design discussions, and ending with a hiring manager or HR round. Candidates noted that while the flow was generally predictable, there were instances of miscommunication and scheduling issues that affected the overall experience.
Candidates experienced a mix of coding and design questions, but some felt that the technical assessments were not fully aligned with QA/SDET expectations, often leaning towards general data structures and algorithms rather than specific testing or automation topics. This disconnect led to confusion and frustration during interviews.
The level of engagement from interviewers varied significantly, with some candidates reporting a positive, supportive atmosphere while others experienced rushed or hostile interactions that undermined their performance. This inconsistency impacted candidates' perceptions of the interview process as a whole.
Candidates expressed concerns about the lack of clear communication and timely feedback throughout the process. Many felt uncertain about their performance due to insufficient updates, which contributed to a sense of disorganization and frustration.
The difficulty of the technical questions varied, with some candidates finding them challenging yet fair, while others felt that the questions did not accurately reflect the role's requirements. Candidates noted that preparation was essential, as the interviews demanded a solid understanding of both theoretical and practical aspects of QA.
Some candidates reported a take-home assignment that involved practical testing scenarios, which was generally well-received. However, subsequent rounds sometimes shifted to a more verbal questioning format that felt less structured and more extractive, leading to mixed experiences.