The process was pretty typical: a phone call with a recruiter, followed by a technical phone screen, then an onsite interview. The onsite is unique in that you meet with the entire panel up front and everyone does introductions together, so you don't have to repeat that with each individual session. Each session is then shorter: they're 45 minutes instead of 1 hour, all technical. I appreciated this optimization of the onsite process. If you pass this step, then you chat with a hiring manager separately. The recruiter will send you useful info on how to prep for the interview, and what they generally look for. They value speed and completeness over perfection, so "finished" solutions are valued highly. The phone screen went well, and the recruiter was able to schedule an onsite quickly. The onsite consisted of four separate technical sessions. Each question was challenging, but not that difficult. I thought I did pretty well, but apparently not well enough, since I did not end up getting an offer. In the feedback the recruiter sent, they mentioned things like "small but critical errors," and needing a few too many hints. So this does not seem to be a culture where they value collaborative problem solving, and being able to recognize and fix your own bugs - they want you to not make any errors to begin with. I asked each interviewer about various aspects of the company, and work/life balance was not a strength. The recruiter mentioned that you're expected to have about 50 hours of work per week, and another interviewer said you can expect to work one weekend per month. They did note that these hours are not mandatory or enforced, but your performance and career development will suffer if you're unable to meet them. Given this aspect, even if I had received an offer, I'm not sure I would have accepted it.