Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Niantic, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
After I applied online, I went straight into a very short introductory chat. I remember it felt more like a kickoff than real screening, and I was told it would be followed by two coding rounds over roughly two weeks. What threw me off was how little detail I got about what the coding rounds would look like, so I didn’t get much of a heads-up before I had to jump into them.
I started with a recruiter-facing step and then got pulled into a fairly straightforward set of technical interviews. After the first recruiter call, the next stage was a technical screen with an engineer—usually framed around one focused question—then it progressed into a virtual onsite style sequence. That onsite loop included multiple technical interviews and, alongside them, behavioral conversations, with one of the later discussions also mixing in a resume-based review.
The interview process typically begins with a recruiter call that focuses on background and fit, often described as friendly and supportive. However, some candidates reported experiences where the call felt rushed or unproductive, leading to frustration.
Candidates usually face a technical screen followed by coding interviews, often involving LeetCode-style problems and algorithmic questions. The coding assessments can vary in difficulty, with some candidates feeling pressure to perform well under time constraints.
Behavioral interviews are integrated into the process, focusing on cultural fit and how candidates approach problem-solving and teamwork. The tone is generally supportive, though some candidates felt the behavioral aspect was less emphasized compared to technical evaluations.
The onsite interview typically consists of multiple back-to-back sessions, combining technical and behavioral discussions. While some candidates appreciated the structure and flow, others experienced disorganization that affected their performance.
Candidates noted varying levels of communication throughout the process, with some experiencing long waits for feedback and updates. Clear communication was often highlighted as a positive aspect, while delays contributed to uncertainty and frustration.
While many candidates found the interview process to be approachable and well-structured, the overall experience varied significantly, with some feeling that the process was overly stressful or poorly coordinated. The lack of offers was a common outcome, leading to reflections on the interview quality.