Nearform Interview Questions
& Process

So the interview involved an initial HR chat, followed by a 1-hour coding challenge where you had to use AI for most of it (5 out of 7 tasks), and then a final chat with the tech director. What's wild is how much they're leaning into AI now. In the coding part, you're basically supposed to use AI for almost everything, only doing a small bit yourself. But it felt like they cared more about how fast you could get stuff done with AI, not if the code was actually good. Being able to check and fix AI code didn't seem to matter as much as just churning out output quickly. This makes me wonder about how they handle code quality and if it's even maintainable long-term. Apparently, the project is for a big McKinsey client, and they're hiring a lot of devs in Italy, expecting some travel. This big hiring push and how they deliver work makes it seem like they're just trying to get bodies in seats fast, rather than building solid teams. It also makes you question why these roles aren't closer to the client, maybe it's just about saving money. Overall, it felt pretty impersonal and all about getting maximum output fast. There was barely any focus on the human side of engineering, teamwork, or actually caring about the craft. It felt like developers are expected to be AI operators, not real engineers. Cons: * Really prioritized speed over correctness * Barely any focus on code quality or thinking critically * Very delivery-focused approach * Didn't pay much attention to the human side of engineering

It was a good experience overall. The people I met were friendly and helpful. First, there was a screening call which was just a chat. Then, a technical interview that wasn't too hard if you know your JavaScript well. The last interview with the hiring manager was the main one where they asked more detailed technical questions, like explaining architectural decisions.

This was a terrible and uncomfortable experience. The interviewers were late, which ate into my time and made me more anxious. They also didn't have the code test ready, and when they did find it, it was deprecated and wouldn't run immediately. None of the interviewers introduced themselves, and one remained off-camera the whole time, which felt very unsettling. I learned later this might be against company policy. On the positive side, they said I understood the concepts and the code well. On the negative, I didn't advance and apparently didn't grasp the initial full repo well enough, which is important for teamwork. The repo had multiple files, some were old and contained filler content that the interviewer admitted they'd never use. They didn't act like a team either, especially with the camera-off person and the general rudeness. They also took up my time trying to fix the code because they were late and didn't have the files ready. The recruiter acknowledged their mistakes, saying they hadn't conducted interviews in a while and that the interviewers were unprepared and hadn't reviewed the material. They admitted the code was old and needed fixing. They also confirmed a strict on-camera policy. Despite being referred by a manager and the company admitting fault, I wasn't given a second chance. The recruiter mentioned they'd focus on preparing the team and the interview exercise going forward. The job was then taken down, only to be reposted five business days later, suggesting insufficient time to fix internal processes. I hope they improve their technical interview process because qualified candidates are being hindered by unprepared interviewers.

An internal recruiter from the company reached out to me via a job board. I had a first stage HR interview with them, which I felt went well and I got positive feedback. We communicated by email about scheduling the next stage, which was supposed to be a technical challenge. However, after two weeks of attempting to find a suitable time for their developers, I eventually heard back from HR that they were actually looking for someone with more backend experience. It's frustrating because they had my CV from the start, and could have identified this requirement then instead of wasting three weeks of my time and building up my expectations. I'd advise against applying here unless you're absolutely certain you meet every single requirement listed in the job description, as you might end up going through their interview process only to be rejected later on.