Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for QA Engineer at Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
I went through a long, full-day hiring drive that felt heavy on technical screening but light on transparency. After getting shortlisted and arriving at the venue early, the start was chaotic—names and entry checks didn’t line up cleanly, and it created a tense, uncertain mood before the first conversation even began. Once inside, I ended up doing multiple back-to-back rounds, with a coding component early on and then technical discussion focused on core Java and Selenium, plus Git and CI/CD concepts. Some parts felt more like a QA day-to-day and Agile discussion, while others pushed into deeper territory like API testing and testing-related coding.
My experience with ICE felt unusually calm and conversational compared to many QA interviews I’d done. After a resume shortlisting, I ended up in a relatively brief technical conversation—more like a discussion than a high-pressure assessment. The interviewer stayed polite and friendly and made the tone comfortable, and the conversation naturally flowed into the tools and frameworks they worked with.
The interview process typically starts with phone screenings followed by an onsite interview that can last several hours, involving multiple rounds with various team members. Candidates noted that the process can feel lengthy and sometimes chaotic, with a lack of clear communication about next steps.
Candidates experienced a heavy emphasis on technical skills, particularly in areas like Java, Selenium, SQL, and automation tools, often through coding exercises and practical discussions. The technical discussions varied in depth, with some candidates feeling the assessments were intense and others finding them more conversational.
Interviews included behavioral discussions that focused on personal motivations and team fit, often with a lighter tone compared to technical rounds. Candidates appreciated the friendly approach of some interviewers, which contributed to a more comfortable atmosphere.
Many candidates expressed frustration over the lack of timely feedback and clarity regarding their status throughout the interview process. Even after completing all rounds, some candidates reported feeling ghosted or receiving vague reassurances without concrete outcomes.
The difficulty level of interviews varied, with some candidates finding the assessments challenging and others feeling they were more straightforward. However, the pressure of long sessions and the need to perform well under scrutiny were common themes across reports.
Onsite interviews sometimes included written tests and logic questions, adding a different dimension to the assessment process. Candidates noted that these elements were unexpected but contributed to a more comprehensive evaluation of their skills.
