Everpure Software Engineer Interview Questions
& Process

I applied for a Principal position in Flasharray division. I had a screening call with recruiter that went well. I wanted to discuss a few technical details that recruiter wouldn't be able to answer, to make sure we have a decent technical match before proceeding to the standard interview loop where the round with manager comes last which is too late. Loop interviewers come from various divisions and lack knowledge to answer questions. I didn't want to waste anyone's time. I asked the recruiter for an extra quick round with the hiring manager or any manager I would be working with. I was available basically on any day and hour. There was silence for one week, then recruiter called me, trying to get me into the standard loop. I explained the reasons for requesting an extra round to save everyone's time. My LinkedIn profile was viewed by one of the managers. There was silence for two weeks followed by a rejection. Due to the circumstances, I presume the hiring manager denied the request for an extra round. The company turned out to be unwilling to schedule an extra technical screening round and I found the way it was done rude. They could have replied they simply don't do that, but they opted for ghosting me. It is common for companies to have the 1st interview after screening with the hiring manager to determine applicant's suitability for the role. Everpure doesn't have much respect for candidates or their own interviewers who end up wasting time. Sounds like a very rigid/arrogant company.

I went through a multi-step interview process with Pure Storage that left me frustrated and disappointed. The process started with a recruiter screening, followed by a 1-hour home assignment, which I completed successfully. After passing that stage, I was invited to two separate 1-hour technical interviews: one focused on algorithms and the other on problem-solving and reasoning. During both interviews, I was able to answer the questions thoroughly and correctly. The interviewers appeared satisfied and engaged, and there were no indications that my performance was lacking. However, shortly after the interviews, I received a generic rejection email from a “do-not-reply” address, stating: “Although we enjoyed meeting you, we did not feel there is a strong match at this time.” This raises a fair question: If my resume, home assessment, and interview performance were not a match, why was this only concluded after multiple hours of technical interviews? These signals should have been clear much earlier in the process. If the decision was made afterward, it is difficult to understand how that conclusion was reached given the interview performance. If the interviews were conducted mainly for formality or benchmarking, that should be reconsidered. Candidates invest significant time and energy into these processes, and that time deserves respect. Overall, while the interviewers were professional, the lack of transparency and feedback, combined with a long process ending in a generic rejection, resulted in a poor candidate experience.

So, there were 4 rounds in total. The first one was an online assessment. You should definitely prepare from previous interview questions because the MCQ questions are usually the same every year. It also had two coding questions, one about multisource shortest path and another a basic sliding window problem. I got shortlisted for the second round. The interviewer was super friendly and helped me out when I got stuck. They asked me to implement a set using just default data structures, without using any libraries like arrays. Then, I had to optimize all the set operations. My prep wasn't great, so I didn't do too well in that interview. The interviewer was really invested in getting the best out of the candidate, which was a really positive experience. Then there were two more rounds, one technical and one managerial. If you're prepping for this interview, you need strong problem-solving skills, not just LeetCode problems but also real-world optimization problems.