Interviewers focused on the fundamental skills and how the candidate was trying to solve the problem rather than making it Q&A session. If we can provide our solutions with clarity it would be easy to crack.

Interview: The interview process was straightforward. A couple of round of interviews, first one with 2 of their senior engineers, and second one with a HM. Despite doing well (answered all the questions asked) and hearing some positive feedback during the interview, I did not get pass the first round. One of the interviewer seemed to like me, he agreed with a lot of answer I said and we had a very positive and collaborative interaction. However, the other one ... not so much. He asked vague questions with a fixed answer in his mind, and when I did not say what he was looking for a couple of times, I lost some points on his scoresheet. I did eventually say what he was looking to hear but that apparently did not save me. Also, the interview was very technical until the final question. The second interviewer, who was not pleased throughout the interview, did a total shift from deep technical questions to a behavioral question for which I did not have an exact match for an answer. I think that hit the nail on the coffin. Recruiter: The recruiter was truly incompetent. Their communication was poor throughout the process, especially after my first interview. Did not get even a generic response about the status of my application. Interviewers and Recruiters both could do a better job.

Technical interview was more question/answer style. No coding tests. This was more of a test center at the time than software development. It was basic intuition and how I could work with others and the depth of technical knowlege of coding, testing and data analytics