Cubic Interview Questions
& Process

HR first talked to me on a call, asked for my details on technology and experience, and mentioned the role is for UiPath RPA + Python. The first technical round was online, and I solved a problem they gave me. The interviewer seemed unsure about the hiring needs. Later that day, HR called with positive feedback and to schedule the next round. Two days later, HR called again, saying there might be just one more round, but it would be face-to-face. I agreed, and since I was sick, I travelled to Hyderabad for the second round, which was with the hiring manager. In this round, the manager discussed automation with Python, building testing frameworks in Python, and controlling hardware with Python, none of which were mentioned before. This didn't match my resume. They had my profile all along but only realized my skills didn't fit their needs during the hiring manager round, after I travelled 500 km. The hiring process was poor, with a lack of clarity on requirements. What could have been clarified early on took too long. The hiring manager, the first interviewer, and HR were not aligned. It seems only the hiring manager knew the actual requirement, and others were just following along. It was a complete waste of time and effort.

Going through the three stages of interviews was quite something. In the second stage, my potential manager shared a really downbeat view, saying the company was pretty much ruined by recent board changes and the Cubic acquisition. They felt it wasn't worth working here anymore, which made me wonder about the company culture. I was pretty surprised by how honest they were. Even after that, I went ahead with the final interview. But then, after waiting over two weeks, I just got a LinkedIn message saying, 'We chose someone else.' No feedback, no reason, just a clear sign of how poor their professional communication was. It felt disrespectful and frustrating.

Got a call from a recruiter about a Java developer opening. First, I had a technical interview for about an hour. A few days later, the recruiter let me know they wanted to move forward and that the next interview would be on-site with a small exercise. I went in at 11 am and was given a pretty challenging exercise which I worked on until 3 pm. Then I had to present my work and explain my thought process, which took another hour. During my explanation, one interviewer abruptly left, which felt like a rejection. I stayed for another hour with the remaining interviewer, discussing company policies and asking basic questions about me. I left after that, and after a few weeks, the recruiter called to inform me I was rejected. Overall, it was a lengthy process; while I don't mind on-site interviews, this one lasted almost a full workday, which felt like a waste of time.

It was a physical screening process on-site. We started with an initial introduction, then interviewees were split into two groups. The first was a general easy 'fun' group exercise. The second exercise involved teams coming up with a solution to a basic transport issue and presenting it. There was a break with snacks and a visit to the labs, which was interesting. Finally, there was a panel interview with 2 systems engineers that lasted 10-20 minutes and was based on my resume.