I went through two stages: a technical screening and a coding session. Screening was fairly standard - basic questions about Python and RDBMS, along with some questions about CQRS and Event-driven architecture. Nothing too difficult, the level of questions was reasonable. Coding session turned out to be more challenging. The task was to implement a Load Balancer in 45 minutes. The format was interesting: the interviewer gives requirements iteratively, moving to the next one after you complete the previous. What was confusing: the interviewer emphasized several times that the solution should be "production ready," but provided no feedback during the process. For me, production ready code means not just the logic, but also tests, logging, and error handling. This created confusion about priorities, especially when new requirements necessitated refactoring already written code along with tests, and time started running out. Impression: The format with iterative requirements is decent in itself, but the lack of intermediate feedback and unclear criteria for "production ready" under time constraints made the task more difficult. It would have been more helpful if the interviewer had given at least some signals about whether I was heading in the right direction. Recommendations for candidates: - Be prepared for rapid coding under changing requirements - Clarify upfront what exactly is meant by "production ready" in the context of interview coding - Practice balancing code quality with implementation speed

I had an absolutely dreadful experience with Revolut's hiring process. Initially, I asked a friend who works at Revolut to refer me. However, my application seemed to disappear entirely from the system—no decline, no update, just gone, as my friend mentioned. That was odd, but I decided to apply manually for a position. Unfortunately, the result was the same: no response whatsoever. Fortunately, I had a recruiter from Revolut in my network who quickly addressed the issue and scheduled an initial HR interview with another recruiter. The first interview went well, though there was some confusion as the HR representative mistakenly thought I was applying for a mid-level Java role. The conversation was casual, covering some technical topics, and I was informed that for the next step—a live coding session—I should prepare my IDE and environment. They also assured me that I could take as much time as needed to prepare and that I would receive detailed feedback at every step of the process. The live coding session involved implementing a URL shortener class with the necessary methods. It's important to note that the interviewer did not initially mention that there would be a second stage to this interview. Throughout the session, I explained my thought process aloud, outlined the API, and wrote tests before implementing the methods. I regularly checked in with the interviewer, asking if my approach was on track and how much time remained. Near the end, with about 5–10 minutes left, the interviewer asked me to focus on coding without explanation, saying he understood everything. It was only then that he mentioned the second stage of the interview. Despite this, I completed the implementation, and we moved on to the next stage, which introduced new requirements: limiting the storage to 100 URLs and ensuring that duplicate full URLs return the existing short URL rather than creating a new one. I quickly implemented these requirements and added simple tests. The interviewer seemed satisfied and invited me to ask questions at the end. However, two days later—on a Saturday, no less—I received feedback with a rejection. The feedback stated, "The code was okay, your implementation was okay as well. The reason we can't proceed is the speed. We couldn't fully complete both stages." This response was shocking. Not only did the feedback not align with the actual interview experience, but it was also vague and uninformative. I had completed both stages, even though the interviewer had only mentioned the second stage toward the end. Additionally, the interviewer indicated that tests were optional but good to have. Despite writing tests and implementing both stages, I was told I didn’t fully complete the stages due to speed. In my opinion, it's the interviewer's responsibility to manage the time and guide the interview, not the candidate's. In summary, my experience with Revolut's recruitment process was incredibly frustrating. There was a lack of coordination between steps, the feedback was nonsensical, and there was no way to follow up with questions due to "no-reply" emails. The only positive aspect of this process was the recruiter in my network, who was extremely helpful—kudos to her! P.S. This is the first time in my life that someone has told me I code and think slowly, which is completely contrary to my actual abilities :)