Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Samsara, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
I started with a recruiter conversation, and after we talked through my background, the recruiter didn’t feel the role I applied for was the best match. Instead of ending things, he suggested another position in the Routing organization. I was skeptical about whether I had the right skills, but the problem domain sounded genuinely interesting, so I agreed to proceed.
My interview journey felt like it was built around a lot of rounds and gatekeeping. The process was described as split into two main stages: Level 2 first, and then Level 3 after you cleared everything in Level 2. I was told I’d need to pass all the Level 2 interviews to move forward, and once eligible for Level 3, I’d go through another set of managerial and technical rounds to finish.
The initial recruiter call is generally focused on discussing the candidate's background and the role, with some reports highlighting the recruiter's personalized feedback and care throughout the process. Candidates appreciated the clarity and organization provided by recruiters, which helped set expectations for the interview stages.
Candidates typically undergo a technical assessment that may include live coding, system design, or take-home projects, with varying levels of difficulty and focus on specific technologies. Some candidates noted that the technical interviews often included unique requirements or tasks that were not standard algorithm questions, leading to mixed experiences.
The interview process often involves multiple rounds, including technical and behavioral interviews, with some candidates experiencing a structured progression through levels. However, several reports mentioned a lack of alignment in expectations and evaluations, leading to frustration despite a well-defined process.
Behavioral interviews are a key component, focusing on cultural fit and past experiences, with candidates encouraged to discuss their projects and motivations. While some found these discussions straightforward, others felt the evaluations were not aligned with the feedback received.
Overall candidate experiences varied, with some reporting a smooth and well-managed process, while others felt the communication and follow-up were lacking, particularly after negative outcomes. Candidates expressed a desire for more constructive feedback and clarity on their performance.
Technical interviews often presented challenges that candidates found difficult, with some feeling unsupported during the process. Reports indicated that the level of difficulty could be unexpected, and the interaction style of interviewers sometimes affected the overall experience.