Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Intuitive, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My process started with a phone screen that focused heavily on my past work, then quickly shifted into deeper technical territory. The questions weren’t abstract; I had to dig into engineering fundamentals and explain how I worked through uncertainty. I remember being pushed to talk through engineering decisions under pressure, almost like I was briefing someone who needed the rationale fast.
I went into the process excited about the role and I put real time into preparing, but the experience quickly started feeling off. I ended up running through three rounds over several weeks, and the communication felt slow and disorganized. Calls would start late without acknowledgment, and at one point I joined a scheduled panel expecting one set of people only to find completely different attendees with no prior notice.
The interview process typically begins with a recruiter screen, followed by multiple technical interviews and a final onsite or panel session. However, candidates reported inconsistencies in scheduling and communication, leading to confusion about the timeline and next steps.
Interviews heavily emphasize technical knowledge and problem-solving skills, often requiring candidates to explain their thought processes and tackle domain-specific questions. Candidates noted a mix of coding challenges and practical engineering scenarios throughout the process.
Behavioral questions are integrated into the interviews, with a focus on understanding candidates' past experiences and how they align with the company's culture. Candidates reported that these discussions were often conversational rather than high-pressure.
Many candidates experienced delays and a lack of communication throughout the process, leading to feelings of frustration and uncertainty. Reports of being 'ghosted' or receiving minimal feedback were common, which detracted from the overall experience.
Onsite and panel interviews often include multiple interviewers assessing candidates from different perspectives, which can create a more thorough evaluation but also lead to a feeling of being scrutinized. Candidates noted varying levels of engagement from interviewers during these sessions.
The overall difficulty of the interviews was noted as high, with candidates feeling the pressure to perform well under time constraints. While many found the technical challenges rigorous, the lack of closure and follow-up left a negative impression for those who did not receive offers.