Real Interview Experiences
Learn what to expect directly from candidates and interviewers who've been through it.
Interviewed recently? Share your experience to try it free, or become a member for full access.
“It was well organized, and the teams took turns so as not to be redundant. It is helpful to go with data-backed examples like AI did for easy reference. While it is not always obvious, you can look up facts like who is the market leader in grocery or what's the number of customers /DAO for an app. It's not necessary to memorize all these Google-able numbers. I was asked a question about TikTok. I explained how I don't use apps that drain my time and focus, and they gave me a different question. ”
“Interviews went well. Company found a better candidate. I got very good feedback from my interviewers though.”
“The process was highly structured and intellectually demanding, spanning five distinct rounds that tested engineering fundamentals, product design, strategy, and leadership. It felt more rigorous than many standard big-tech interviews because it required a deep dive into Okta’s specific ecosystem, particularly the Okta Integration Network (OIN) and its technical nuances.”
“The process was rigorous. Be prepared to explain your projects in depth during the screenings and behaviorals. Be able to answer why you made X decision over Y. For the on-site, it will be in-person for an entire day (11am-7pm). It will require SQL (Leetcode mediums), an analytics exercise working through messy data with Python (be prepared to work fast, you can use AI tools), a written portion explaining how you would go about building certain models, and a final product sense interview. ”
“It is important to not get flustered during the case if you feel like you do not know something. Stay calm and collected. Take time to think before speaking. One of my interviewers was really nice and friendly. The other interviewer was not a friendly.”
“Technical interviews were mostly fine. 6 rounds, marathon-style. Did all interviews and was ghosted afterwards, no follow ups, no rejection emails, nothing.”
“The process was structured, thoughtful, and generally well run. The interviews felt focused on practical judgment, problem-solving, communication, and how I approach ambiguous technical and product situations. I appreciated that the conversations were substantive rather than purely checklist-based. What went well was that I felt able to draw on real examples from my past work, especially around leading technical projects, working with customers, and making tradeoffs under uncertainty. The interviewers were engaged and asked good follow-ups, which made the discussions feel collaborative. What was harder was that some parts required being very concise while still giving enough technical depth. In a few moments, I probably could have structured my answers more clearly upfront before going into details.”
“It was really interesting to me since Microsoft PM interviews are known to test heavily (sometimes only) on behavioural as opposed to PM frameworks. However, my experience was mostly PM frameworks with an AI twist on them, which tripped me up a little bit. ”
“The process was standard, with a recruiter chat first, then scheduling round 1 with 2 PMs: 1 on product sense and the other on metrics. Product sense - the interviewer likes to know how you frame the problem, set goals, and how it ties with the overall company strategy. Make sure to be concise and walk users through problems to solutions before time is up.”
Preview full access of other recent interview experiences
“The weirdest Anthropic round was the company values interview. It was almost like a therapy session, and honestly if you went to a therapist at some point, you will pass that round much more easily.”
“What was very unusual is they didn’t give me any tooling to draw the system design, so I just sketched it on a piece of paper and talked them through it, then we got into this oddly deep debate about whether hover-over history should count as a recommendation signal.”
