Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Engie Impact, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My first contact was essentially HR-led: the discussion centered on my role motivations and how they matched what was on the job description. After that, I met with the manager and spent a good amount of time going deep into the responsibilities—what the work actually looked like day to day, and what expectations came with it. The tone was detailed and explanatory, and it genuinely helped me understand the scope.
After a recruiter touchpoint, the process moved quickly into interviews where the technical side really took center stage. I had a live coding round where I wrote code while sharing my screen, and the questions were framed around .NET-style problem solving. The next step was more practical and team-facing: I worked through a take-home technical assessment, then came an on-site pair programming session with a senior engineer where we coded together and talked through the approach.
The interview process typically starts with HR-led discussions focusing on background and motivations, followed by a mix of technical assessments and managerial interviews. Candidates noted that the entire process can take several weeks, with multiple touchpoints and a structured flow.
Candidates experienced a variety of technical evaluations, including live coding sessions, take-home assessments, and discussions centered on practical applications of their skills, particularly in .NET and Laravel frameworks. The focus was often on core concepts and real-world problem-solving rather than abstract questions.
Behavioral interviews were common, emphasizing candidates' past experiences and how they align with the role's expectations. Interviewers sought to understand candidates' motivations and fit within the company culture through detailed discussions about previous projects and responsibilities.
Candidates reported a generally positive communication experience, with many receiving constructive feedback after interviews, regardless of the outcome. This transparency helped candidates understand their fit and the decision-making process.
The overall difficulty of the interviews was described as average, with a focus on clarity and fundamental understanding rather than obscure or overly complex topics. Candidates felt that the process was fair and well-structured, even when they did not receive offers.
The interview environment was generally described as calm and professional, with interviewers aiming to create a supportive atmosphere. Candidates appreciated the organized approach and the focus on understanding their skills and experiences rather than putting them under pressure.