I had 5 stages of the interview: 1. Communication with a recruiter 2. Two tasks on algorithms. (On leetcode, this is the level: easy... maybe medium, but not sure) 3. "Coding Interview" is was just live programming. The task was also simple. The interview was interesting, I enjoyed it. Thanks to interviewer Artem. It was cool! 4. "Algorithm / Fund Interview" is just a conversation. Overall, I enjoyed it. But there were questions from the category: "How is var different from let and const"? I was confused and sometimes I didn't understand what position did I apply for? :D 5. Team Fit/Collaboration Interview The interview was the same as the previous one. I mean, question - answer. But I didn't like it. The questions were all about soft skils. But they cannot be answered in the abstract or use my expireance, and I think thet intervuer expect correct answer. P.s. Besides, it seems I had the opposite mine on some questions. Example questions: "What to do if a manager came and said to do something in 3 days", "Who makes decisions about technologies"? When the interview was close to the end, him phone rang and we immediately finished the interview. I think it was rude... Throughout the interview, we could not find common ground. I also felt a kind of arrogance (or uncaring, it's hard to say) from the interviewer. Result: I got reject because my English is low (it's can be true). For questions, I also assessed the company. In general, I can recommend it to my friends. Everything will depend on which team they get into. In my opinion, the level of knowledge of the interviewers was different.

After screening, I had three rounds: coding, foundations, and behavioral. The coding task is a leetcode easy-medium, but pay attention to how you code it, i.e., style, comments, functions, modules, etc. While I solved the task and the solution was very close to the one on the internet, interviewers stated that I needed stronger coding skills without providing enough feedback to pinpoint the issue. The second interview looked more like an exam to me. Questions ranged from basic to more advanced, like what the reactivity is, what the practical difference between various frameworks is, what I would choose for starting a project, and why. I didn't particularly appreciate how the interview was conducted. The interviewer was very picky and expected precise definitions and terms, and any correct variations or attempts to describe the term instead, like "I don't know what it's called, but it works like that," added to an overall negative result. Behavioral was as any behavioral: what would you do if..., what you did when..., and so on. The overall experience was ok, but some interviews and interviewers left a bad aftertaste.