Confiz Interview Questions
& Process

I went through several interview rounds with Confiz. It started with the manager, then the technical team, then the team lead, and finally the data director. Everything seemed to go well, and I was informed I had passed each stage. But after weeks of no contact, even when I followed up by email, phone, and LinkedIn, it's obvious the company doesn't have basic professional courtesy. As someone with over 10 years of experience, this lack of respect is really disappointing. Time is precious, and this kind of behavior is not okay for any company that claims to value its people.

My interview experience with Confiz was really great. The process was set up nicely, and everyone I talked to was professional and friendly, really wanting to know about my skills. They made it feel comfortable and asked good questions. They also told me a lot about the company culture and what the job involves. Communication was clear and quick, which made me feel appreciated. It was a good and interesting experience that showed Confiz is professional and serious about finding the right person for their team.

The interview process started with an HR session, followed by two technical rounds, and concluded with a final session with the General Manager. Although the tech rounds were scheduled for 45 minutes, they each lasted about 90 minutes. I was informed that the final session with the GM did not go well, and I'm unsure if it was due to the interview itself or salary expectations. It's typical for Pakistani companies not to provide honest feedback. If a candidate passes the tech rounds and HR sessions, it makes one wonder what else is needed. If the tech rounds and other sessions hold less weight, it would be more efficient to reverse the process to manage candidate expectations and save time.

My experience interviewing for a Senior Software Architect role was disappointing due to their hiring methods and the interviewer's lack of expertise. The interviews involved coding tests on an IDE or Notepad, without allowing pseudocode, which overlooked essential architectural skills. The interviewer seemed to have a poor understanding of the subject, insisting on one way to solve problems and shutting down other ideas. This rigid approach is unrealistic for complex challenges. To make matters worse, the final coding task was too simple and bizarrely was to be done on notepad. This showed a disconnect between how they assessed candidates and the demands of a senior architect position. The interviewer's inability to grasp different problem-solving methods highlighted their flawed assessment practices. I decided to withdraw my application because of these issues. It's a clear sign that companies need to use comprehensive evaluation techniques and hire interviewers who genuinely understand the roles they're assessing.