Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Roima Intelligence, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
My process was described to me as a sequence of three stages: an HR round for communication and cultural fit, then a technical round to evaluate skills and knowledge, and finally an offer for selected candidates. The overall framing was structured, and I understood early on that the technical portion would be the main checkpoint.
My first stage was an aptitude written test that also included coding-style questions, all on paper. I remember getting separate sets of questions: one paper that mixed MCQs with some basic coding, and then a second paper shortly after that. In that second paper, the DB-focused part stood out—there were database query questions to reason through, and the other items were more logic/pseudocode based, like producing event-log style outputs.
The interview process typically consists of three stages: an initial written aptitude and coding test, followed by an HR conversation, and concluding with a technical interview. Candidates noted that the structure was clear but felt rigid and somewhat impersonal.
Candidates experienced a pen-and-paper written test that included multiple-choice questions, basic coding tasks, and database-related queries, which set the tone for the rest of the interview process. The written test was perceived as a significant hurdle, with many feeling it was more about endurance than skill assessment.
The technical interviews placed a strong emphasis on data structures and algorithms (DSA), SQL, and object-oriented programming (OOP) concepts, often requiring candidates to write code by hand. Many candidates felt the questions were more challenging than expected, particularly for entry-level roles.
The HR round generally focused on behavioral questions and cultural fit, with candidates reporting it as less stressful compared to the technical portion. However, some candidates felt that the HR discussions were more formalities rather than in-depth evaluations.
Several candidates reported a stressful and unprofessional atmosphere during interviews, with instances of poor communication from interviewers and a lack of clarity in the evaluation process. This negatively impacted their overall impression of the company.
Candidates expressed that the expectations throughout the interview process were higher than initially described, particularly regarding technical knowledge and problem-solving skills. Many felt unprepared for the level of difficulty presented in the interviews.