Real, anonymous reports from people who interviewed for Software Engineer at Thomson Reuters, newest first and distilled into what to expect across the loop.
The interview journey felt fairly standard from the start, but it moved through the usual progression quickly: an online technical screening phase, then a programming round, followed by a system design round, and finally a leadership/behavioral conversation. It took about a month end to end.
My process stretched to about a month and felt very smooth scheduling-wise—there were multiple reschedules because of availability, and the actual meetings ran cleanly when they happened. At one point I left a technical day feeling like the interviewer wasn’t truly listening, almost like they were steering toward answers they had already prepared. That contrast made the session feel a bit one-sided, even though it was only an hour.
The interview process typically spans about a month and includes multiple phases: an initial online assessment, followed by technical interviews focusing on coding and system design, and concluding with behavioral discussions. Candidates noted variations in scheduling and communication, with some experiencing delays and rescheduling.
Candidates faced a mix of technical assessments, including coding challenges (often LeetCode-style), system design discussions, and questions on specific technologies like cloud infrastructure and AI. The difficulty level was generally average, but some candidates felt the execution depended heavily on interviewer engagement.
Behavioral interviews focused on candidates' past experiences, problem-solving approaches, and cultural fit within the team. This aspect was often seen as crucial, with some candidates feeling that alignment with team dynamics played a significant role in the final decision.
The quality of communication and engagement from interviewers varied, with some candidates reporting a lack of responsiveness or feeling that interviewers were not fully engaged during discussions. This inconsistency impacted the overall interview experience and candidates' perceptions of their performance.
Several candidates encountered take-home assessments that varied in length and complexity, which sometimes felt isolating compared to live interactions. While these assignments were part of the evaluation, they noted that the lack of immediate feedback made the process feel less engaging.
Despite many candidates feeling they performed well in interviews, a significant number did not receive offers, often citing unclear feedback and long wait times for decisions. This left some feeling frustrated and uncertain about their standing in the process.