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.
“The overall process was rigorous and comprehensive, more challenging than many interviews I have done with other large technology companies. However, the recruiter’s guidance was accurate and genuinely helpful, which I really appreciated. The interviewers were professional and respectful, and I felt the process was designed to evaluate both technical depth and practical problem-solving ability. What went well was that the process gave me opportunities to discuss my experience, research background, and approach to problem solving. What did not go as well was that a few questions caught me off guard, especially where I needed to connect fundamentals, implementation details, and communication under time pressure. Even though I was not able to answer every question as well as I wanted, the experience helped me understand which areas I should strengthen further.”
“Went well overall - The recruiter was really responsive and helpful. Everyone i talked to was really nice”
“It was a fas process and the recruiter was very nice and quick to answer. Recruiter had a good knowledge of how teams operate. Technical interview was with hiring manager, had to add a filter to an existing report in typescript. It was AI assisted.”
“It was a smooth experience and gave an overview at the phone interview round of what would be expected at the onsite interview. ”
“The interview process consisted of two technical rounds and lasted around 5.5 hours in total. The interview started with basic questions and gradually became more challenging. The interviewers focused heavily on problem-solving ability, C++ fundamentals, data structures, memory management, and operating system concepts. For coding questions, they often started with a straightforward version of a problem and then continuously modified constraints, expecting more optimized solutions. What went well was explaining my thought process, discussing trade-offs, and solving the initial versions of the problems. What didn't go well was some of the deeper follow-up discussions around low-level system concepts and advanced optimizations, where the interviewers kept pushing for further improvements.”
“2 HLD rounds, 1 LLD round, 1 HM round. Did well in all the technical rounds. HM round - I got rejected because the Hiring Manager thought my scalability experience was not upto the expectations.”
“The process was well organized and technically rigorous. Interviewers focused on problem-solving and practical imaging knowledge. What caught me off guard was the depth of questions on camera systems and image processing details.”
“Very strong interviewers who know what they are looking for and prompt you in the direction needed. The product sense question seemed too narrow in scope and was phrased in a tricky way where traditional structure could not fit in to solve the problem.”
“It started well, but at some point I was rushing through, so I had to take sometime and relax. I needed to clearly articulate my thoughts process well. Definitely use the STAR method in your preparation, it really worked for me”
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.”
