The process that stuck with me most leaned heavily on practical work rather than pure whiteboard problem-solving. After a brief HR chat, I was sent a coding challenge on an online platform where the UX wasn’t great, and I had a long window—around ten hours—to build something and submit project files as a zipped archive. The task itself focused on using a modern frontend setup, and I made sure to use React features they later claimed I hadn’t.
When I got rejected, the feedback was blunt: they said I didn’t use the latest React features, even though I had used hooks with TypeScript. What made it frustrating was that it felt like the communication stayed at the conclusion level, not at a detailed technical explanation of what was missing.
> 1 year
Difficult Neutral Bengaluru
My journey into Sixt had a recruiter touchpoint first, where I was impressed by what they described about the tech stack. After that, I had to pass an online exam before I could even reach the 1:1 technical discussion. Once I cleared that, the rest of the process became a sequence of technical rounds that escalated toward a team lead and then a manager.
The technical discussions were mostly around JavaScript and problem-solving through coding and reasoning, and I remember being surprised by how the manager round was run—there was an expectation to write complete optimized code end-to-end, and I felt like the manager also challenged my use of pseudo-code as a substitute. That round included a question that felt oddly disconnected from what I had been building toward. I answered it in terms of how I would handle a role spanning Java, React, and JavaScript, but my bigger takeaway was that the role-fit conversation sometimes came before the technical conversation felt fully “qualified.”
Share your interview experience
Interviewed here recently? Add yours to help the next candidate. You'll appear as Anonymous.
