Multiple steps: HR -> leadership -> technical. Technical interview consist of: Kotlin knowledge, async programming, architecture, testing. Kotlin and async programming part is solely based on blind memorization as you will need to code on empty Yandex (what?) sheet and guess things which will autocompleted anyway. At one point it felt that they do not know how to answer their questions themselves after confrontation on what should be a correct solution. Async programming is either RxJava or Coroutines. In architecture part they expect you to explain each letter of SOLID. Also you should know that in real clean architecture use cases do not reference data module (opposite to what Android guidelines suggest). Testing is the simplest part - just extract non-testable things as a class dependency (e.g. Random, Date, etc.) Overall, it felt as though they were searching for candidates who can code without autocomplete (or internet access) on a sheet of paper, with little emphasis on practical work or product-related skills. It seems they are looking for code-crackers, whereas today’s relevance lies in product engineers who can elevate the product, not just write code.

Consisted of two rounds following an initial recruiter screening. First Round: The first interview was a cultural fit interview with an engineering manager. The focus was on my experience and values. Although scheduled for 1.5 hours, the interviewer seemed satisfied with my responses, so it lasted only around 50 minutes. Second Round: The second interview was a technical interview with two engineers, lasting 2 hours. The questions were very detailed, focusing heavily on intricate aspects of Kotlin and coroutines. Some of the details required for those topics in my opinion, are not part of an engineer's daily considerations and require specific study beforehand. Additionally, I was asked to write an algorithm to sort a linked list and to explain each of the SOLID principles. I would have preferred a more realistic task, such as building a feature from scratch, as the current approach may exclude many qualified candidates. Furthermore, the interviewer's poor English proficiency made communication difficult. General Impressions: Throughout the process, including the initial recruiter screening, I had numerous doubts about the company. A common theme, as seen in other Glassdoor reviews, is that it may not be a good cultural fit for candidates from the UK, while it might suit those from Lithuania. Unlike other interviews I've had, even with companies abroad in Scandinavia, the interactions here (with the exception of the engineering manager) felt very robotic. The interviewers and even the recruiter, despite being friendly in emails, were not very conversational, making the experience less engaging. Overall, the interview process felt outdated and unwelcoming. I would advise the company to consider modernising its approach to better assess candidates' practical skills and to foster a more inclusive and conversational interview environment.