Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Dun & Bradstreet, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My experience leaned negative because the tone and engagement were off. During a technical interview, the interviewer seemed disengaged and spent a lot of time handling emails and chat messages on their laptop instead of focusing on the conversation. The questions were very algorithm-heavy—specific things like data structures and sorting—but when I asked for context about the use case or what problem they were trying to solve, there wasn’t much to go on.
I had a pretty smooth, well-organized process. I started with an HR call that was mainly about getting introduced and lining up the next step with the team lead. After that, I went into a technical interview and then did a home assignment. The whole thing felt fair and not especially hard, and the people I spoke with were genuinely nice.
The interview process varied significantly in organization, with some candidates experiencing a well-structured sequence of HR, technical, and managerial rounds, while others faced disorganized scheduling and poor communication, leading to a frustrating experience.
Technical interviews often included live coding sessions focused on algorithms and data structures, with some candidates also facing system design prompts that required explaining architectural trade-offs, reflecting a high bar for technical depth and reasoning.
Behavioral interviews were common, emphasizing cultural fit and personal experiences, with some candidates noting a focus on how they communicated their past work and approached problem-solving in a collaborative manner.
The level of engagement from interviewers varied, with some candidates feeling a lack of warmth and curiosity, while others appreciated a more conversational and supportive atmosphere during their interviews.
Post-interview communication was inconsistent, with some candidates experiencing delays or complete silence after initial positive interactions, leading to frustration and uncertainty about their application status.
Candidates reported varying levels of difficulty, with some finding the process rigorous and challenging, while others felt it was manageable; reflections often included what they wished they had done differently to improve their chances.