Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for QA Engineer at Intercontinental Exchange, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
I went through a long, confusing interview run that started with a full-day hiring drive. It kicked off early in the day and stretched all the way to late afternoon, with multiple stages stacked back-to-back. First I did a coding round with a set of programming problems and had to pick one to solve. After that, I moved into a technical discussion that touched Core Java, Selenium, Git, and CI/CD. The next segment varied in depth—some focus areas leaned into day-to-day QA and Agile, while mine also covered heavier territory like API testing and coding concepts. There was an HR discussion afterward, then a VP conversation that centered on role expectations, motivation to join, and whether I could comfortably work from the office five days a week.
My interview at ICE felt surprisingly smooth and easy to navigate. I didn’t get the sense of a “gotcha” environment; instead, the conversation came across collaborative and the people I spoke with sounded genuinely knowledgeable. The whole vibe was more like a technical discussion than a stressful exam.
The interview process typically consists of multiple stages, starting with phone screens followed by in-person interviews that can last several hours, often with multiple interviewers. Candidates should be prepared for a lengthy commitment, especially during the final in-person sessions.
Candidates can expect a strong focus on technical skills related to QA, including coding problems, SQL queries, and automation tools like Selenium. Some interviews may also include logic puzzles to assess problem-solving capabilities.
Interviews often include discussions about team dynamics, motivation, and work expectations, particularly regarding the candidate's fit within the company's culture and their willingness to work in-office. This aspect is crucial for understanding the company's values.
Candidates have reported mixed experiences regarding communication throughout the process, with some feeling a lack of clarity and feedback after interviews, which can lead to uncertainty about their standing. Clearer communication could enhance the candidate experience.
The overall atmosphere during interviews tends to be collaborative rather than adversarial, allowing candidates to engage in technical discussions without feeling pressured. This supportive environment can help candidates perform better.
Interviews often dive deeply into specific technical areas, such as test plan management and UI automation, with an emphasis on practical application rather than theoretical knowledge. Candidates should be ready to demonstrate their hands-on experience.