Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Impact, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After a recruiter conversation, I ended up with two technical interviews with a senior software engineer. The process felt fairly targeted: I was being tested on Java fundamentals rather than LeetCode-style problems. The topics I remember covering included core language details like access modifiers, and Java threading concepts (including method-related questions tied back to threads). I also got questions on design patterns and the general way you’d structure solutions using common OOP concepts. It was the kind of interview where having the right terminology and mental model mattered, because the questions stayed close to the Java concepts themselves.
I went through an in-person loop where the interview questions were mostly basic Java and OOP. There wasn’t any LeetCode-style coding, and the pace felt very approachable compared to the tougher coding-centric processes I’d seen elsewhere. I felt like I understood what they were checking and I answered in a way that matched what they were looking for.
The interview process typically begins with an HR screening, followed by a Java coding assessment, and culminates in technical interviews focused on Java fundamentals and OOP concepts. Candidates noted a clear and organized flow throughout the stages, which helped reduce anxiety.
Interviews emphasize Java language fundamentals, including core concepts, design patterns, and threading, rather than algorithm-heavy or LeetCode-style problems. Candidates should prepare to discuss their understanding of Java in detail and demonstrate their knowledge through practical examples.
In later stages, candidates may encounter a code review round where they are assessed on their ability to critique and evaluate code. This round shifts the focus from basic knowledge to practical application and understanding of code quality.
The interviewers often guide candidates through questions, especially when they struggle with theoretical concepts, creating a more supportive environment focused on understanding rather than just testing knowledge. This approach can help alleviate some pressure during technical discussions.
Candidates generally found the difficulty of the interviews to be average, but noted that precise terminology and clear communication of concepts were critical for success. Misalignment in expectations regarding the depth of knowledge required can lead to challenges in later rounds.
Many candidates expressed frustration with the lack of feedback after interviews, which left them feeling uncertain about their performance and the reasons for not receiving offers. Clear communication and closure from the recruiting team are areas for improvement.