Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Kotak Mahindra Bank, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
Once I got into the core technical stage, the structure was pretty consistent: a three-section flow covering DSA, LLD, and HLD. The DSA segment typically involved one or two medium LeetCode-style problems, and then the low-level design portion leaned toward design practice modeled after common real systems like food delivery and large internet platforms. In that LLD round, I wasn’t expected to jump straight into heavy code; the focus was on classes, overall design, and the design patterns I used.
My later-stage interviews felt different from the earlier, more standardized rounds. I ended up with only one round where the questions pulled directly from a mix of DSA, SQL, and my own background. The DSA part was a single medium question, and the SQL question was also pretty manageable—most of the difficulty came from explaining my approach clearly rather than getting lost in edge cases.
The interview process typically consists of multiple technical rounds, often starting with a Bar Raiser session that combines DSA, low-level design (LLD), and high-level design (HLD) questions. Candidates should expect a structured flow where each round tests different technical competencies, often with a focus on reasoning and explanation.
Candidates will face a mix of medium-level DSA problems, often similar to LeetCode questions, requiring clear problem-solving and explanation of approaches. The emphasis is on both correctness and the ability to articulate thought processes, with common topics including arrays, strings, and algorithms like binary search.
The LLD portion typically involves designing systems based on real-world scenarios, such as food delivery or e-commerce applications, while the HLD questions may cover distributed systems concepts. Candidates should prepare to discuss design choices and their implications on system architecture.
Throughout the interviews, candidates are expected to explain their reasoning and design choices clearly, making communication a critical skill. Interviewers often assess not just the final answer but the thought process and clarity of explanations provided during problem-solving.
The overall difficulty of the interviews is generally perceived as average, with candidates often feeling challenged but not overwhelmed. However, the evaluation criteria can be somewhat opaque, leading to uncertainty about performance and outcomes after interviews.
Many candidates report delays and a lack of clarity in post-interview communication, often experiencing long waits for feedback or offer details. This can lead to frustration, so candidates should be prepared for potential uncertainty in the timeline following their interviews.