Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Kraken, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After a recruiter chat, the process moved into a take-home technical challenge based on Python/Django and centered on parsing energy-industry flow files. The estimate they gave me was about 3–4 hours, and there wasn’t a strict deadline, but the prompt was intentionally a bit ambiguous. I ended up leaning into that: I documented my assumptions clearly, wrote up what I didn’t finish within the timeframe when it came to it, and packaged everything in a detailed README. What stood out was how closely the work resembled what I’d actually do in the role, and how comfortable they made it feel to reason out an answer rather than hunt for a single “gotcha” requirement.
My timeline started with a screening call with a recruiter, focused on my background, why I wanted the role, and basic logistics. After that, I received a home assessment built around Python/Django, with a rough 3–4 hour window. The assignment was meant to be doable, and once I submitted it I moved quickly into interviews that were very tightly tied to what I’d built—first a review with engineers about my approach and what I could improve, then a more final conversation that covered culture fit and broader discussion about working style.
The interview process typically starts with a recruiter screening, followed by a take-home technical challenge, and then progresses through technical discussions and final interviews, often concluding within 2-4 weeks. Candidates noted a generally fast-paced and structured timeline, with clear communication throughout.
Candidates are given a take-home assignment focused on Python/Django, usually estimated to take 3-4 hours, which is relevant to the role and designed to assess real-world skills. Feedback on these assignments can vary, with some candidates feeling the expectations were not aligned with the feedback received.
After the take-home task, candidates engage in a technical discussion where they explain their approach and decisions, with interviewers focusing on understanding thought processes rather than just evaluating code. This round is generally conversational and supportive.
Final stages often include behavioral interviews that assess cultural fit and working style, with questions designed to understand how candidates would operate in day-to-day scenarios. This part of the process is typically framed as a two-way conversation.
Candidates reported varying experiences with communication quality throughout the process, with some noting responsive and clear interactions, while others experienced delays and unclear feedback that left them feeling uncertain about their performance.
The overall difficulty of the process is perceived as high, with candidates feeling both challenged and motivated by the standards. While many did not receive offers, they appreciated the respectful and coherent nature of the interview experience.