After an HR conversation with some motivation-focused questions, I had a technical interview where the difficulty felt pretty manageable if I knew the fundamentals. The technical part started with a coding/logic-style question about finding prime numbers, and the flow then moved into more applied problem solving. I was also asked what kinds of classes were needed to build a chess simulation game, so I ended up reasoning about both algorithmic thinking and object design rather than just writing code.
On a separate technical-style screen, the questioning felt like it was aimed at core Java and backend fundamentals: they covered Java topics plus Spring and microservices, and they also asked about event-driven architecture. That round began with a DSA question and then moved into streams, and overall it felt like a structured grilling rather than something vague.
5 months ago
Difficult Negative Poland
My process started with numerical and reasoning tests, followed by a HireVue recording plus a writing component. The tests themselves were at an okay level, but there was one thing that threw me: the way I approached the software question could be interpreted as “testing,” and it seemed like that framing was something they didn’t like.
The HireVue part was the worst experience I’d had. It combined oral and written responses, and although they said I would have time to prepare and could rerecord, I couldn’t really rerecord when I wanted to. The preparation time also felt too short—I would start reading and lose time before I could think clearly about an answer. Even the writing prompt felt poorly constructed, with misleading wording that made the task harder to interpret than it needed to be.
Share your interview experience
Interviewed here recently? Add yours to help the next candidate. You'll appear as Anonymous.
