I applied through a recruiter that reached out to me and has been really supportive throughout. The recruitment process is quite lengthy involving the following stages 1. Online coding exercise (3 dynamic programming problems) 2. Talent manager interview 3. 2 - 1 hour virtual lab interviews 4. Further discussions to check cultural fit. I managed to get to the first virtual lab, where I have been presented an SQL problem (there was no specific asks mentioned from the start). The first question asked was around how would you build the primary key for the table which had scrambled data. There might be other asks but we got stuck on this one for a couple of reasons. 1. There was not a lot of clear input from the interviewers but suggestions that did not really indicate anything to chew on. The answers I'd given were based on assumptions which I've made and I've stated clearly. 2. There were no clear clarifications on how the data is sourced and if it is consistent all across. Can't really make up a lot from a single table without knowing the bigger picture. I asked about data consistency, I've been given answers which were not too clear. Before the end of the interview they told me that the data is coming from external vendors and they do some processing before persistance. Overall feedback from MW: I didn't provide clear answers to the problem articulating clearly a solution. They felt that the interview experience did not match my seniority (this got me thinking now). Furthermore my experience did not cover their tech stack enough. My personal feedback about the process: 1. The role was advertised as mainly a Java role, didn't specify that SQL fluency is a must. So a bit misleading what they are looking for. 2. I was actually a bit disturbed by the comment regarding the tech stack overlap. I would expect a serious company to review the resume before proceeding with a candidate. You just don't go using people's time to later figure out that they might not be suitable based on information you had from the very start. Suggests a flaw in their recruitment process. 3. The tech interviewers are MW employees which have grown in the company, who I don't think are realistic in their approach towards the process. They might be really good at building code, but not necessary excelling at interviewing, maybe some practice will help. 4. Based on the discussion had with their talent acquisition I've been told that often they are chasing 'unicorns' in terms of candidates. Maybe a piece of feedback that could be onboarded and clear things out and shorten the recruitment process.