Tell me about a time you made a mistake.

"The process is quite messy. The recruiter reached out back in August, and then when I expressed interest it took her another couple of weeks to get back to me. Then another week to schedule initial talk with a team member. Then I had two screening interviews with members from Reality Labs, none technical but talked about past projects, how I see myself fit in the team, what can I contribute, etc."

"Technical round was comparatively easy than the final round. Take home project is also an easy one, kind of standard."

"The Amazon PM-T interview was one of the more structured and rigorous interview processes I've experienced. The process typically includes an initial recruiter screening, a 60-minute phone interview with a hiring manager or senior leader, a written assessment, and a final loop of five interviews lasting approximately 55 minutes each. What went well: I appreciated that the interviews focused on actual work experience rather than purely hypothetical scenarios. This gave me opportunities to discuss complex projects, technical trade-offs, cross-functional leadership, and real business outcomes. Most interviewers were professional, well-prepared, and genuinely interested in understanding how I approached difficult problems. What didn't go well: The process was mentally exhausting, particularly because similar Leadership Principles sometimes appeared across multiple interviews. A single project could be examined from several different angles, making the conversations feel repetitive. Some interviewers were also very persistent with follow-up questions, leaving limited time for candidates to ask about the actual team or role. I would have appreciated more transparency around the team's current challenges, the expectations for the position, and how the different interview rounds were evaluated."

"Stripe's PM interview process was exceptionally rigorous. It started with a recruiter screen, followed by a dedicated Product Sense interview and a Hiring Manager round, before progressing to a three-interview final loop. What stood out was how comprehensively Stripe evaluated product leadership—not just product intuition, but also analytical thinking, technical depth, execution, and cross-functional decision-making. The process felt particularly aligned with Stripe's engineering-driven, developer-first culture and its emphasis on high-quality product craft."

"The process was somewhat behavorial as opposed to technical. The interviewers were very relaxed, but questions seemed not to be entirely focused on pm."

"It was great. The interviewer was extremely helpful. Everything went well, and there is nothing that didnt go well"

"Overall, it followed Meta's typical PM loop and most questions came from the Meta question bank. What didn't go well is the time recruiter takes to schedule and team match time it takes."

"The process was much quicker and smoother than at other companies. Recruiters shared some pointers on what to prepare, and mostly it was around that only. What did not go well was that one interview was online, and others were on-site."

"The overall interview process was well organized and gave me a good understanding of the role and team. The recruiter was communicative throughout and provided helpful guidance on what to expect. The interviews were challenging but fair, and I appreciated the opportunity to speak with people across different functions. Some questions required more detailed examples and quicker thinking than I expected, but overall it was a positive experience."

"The overall interview process was smooth and well-organized, moving from the initial recruiter reach-out to the technical and behavioral rounds within three weeks. Communication throughout was prompt, and the interviewers provided clear context on what each stage would cover."

"The overall interview process was more rigorous than anything I had experienced at other large companies. The recruiter was clear, responsive, and helpful in explaining what to expect, which allowed me to prepare effectively. The interviewers were professional, and the questions gave me a good opportunity to demonstrate my experience through real examples. However, some questions felt repetitive across the different rounds, and a few follow-up questions were more detailed than I expected. Overall, it was a challenging but well-structured and positive experience."

"Just focus on you preparation and survive the situation the best you can. Don’t get nervous. Interview just tests your surviving skills."

"The overall interview process consisted of four stages: an initial recruiter screen, two domain-specific technical rounds, and a final behavioral interview with the leadership team. What went well Communication from the recruiting team was proactive and transparent. Expectations for each round were clearly outlined in advance, and the interviewers were highly engaged. The case study round was a standout experience; it felt less like a rigid assessment and more like a collaborative whiteboard session, allowing for a genuine exchange of ideas and a clear view into the team's working dynamics. What didn’t go well There were noticeable scheduling bottlenecks between the technical rounds and the final leadership interview, stretching the total timeline by an unexpected two weeks. Additionally, during the technical presentation, the primary video conferencing platform experienced severe connectivity drops. This disrupted the flow of the discussion and required us to switch to an audio-only fallback, making it difficult to present visual data effectively."

"The interview lasted about four hours and was divided into several sections. One section focused on behavioral questions, where I was asked about my past experiences, how I handle different situations, and examples of teamwork, leadership, and problem-solving. Another section assessed my math skills through quantitative and analytical questions. The final section was technical and conceptual, testing my understanding of fundamental technical concepts, my reasoning process, and how I approached solving technical problems rather than simply recalling facts."

"The process was well-organized and moved at a reasonable pace. Communication from the recruiter was clear, and each round had a defined focus, so I always knew what to expect. The interviewers were professional and gave me space to walk through my thinking. What went well was the technical discussion , it felt like a genuine conversation rather than a checklist, and the questions were relevant to the role. What could have been smoother was the scheduling between rounds, which took a bit longer than expected, and I would have appreciated slightly more feedback along the way."

"The overall interview process was incredibly smooth, straightforward, and well-organized from start to finish. The recruiter was exceptionally friendly, responsive, and did a fantastic job of setting clear expectations for each stage. There weren't any significant downsides, as the scheduling was efficient and the communication remained consistent throughout."

"Overall, I had a very positive interview experience. The process felt organized and conversational, and I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the role, the team, and how the position contributes to the broader organization. The interviewer created a comfortable environment that allowed me to speak openly about my experience and approach to problem-solving. I felt that I communicated my experience and interest in the role well. One area I could have improved was being slightly more concise in a few of my responses. Overall, I left the conversation with a stronger understanding of the opportunity and a positive impression of American Express."

"Overall, I had a positive interview experience. The conversation felt engaging and gave me a better understanding of the role, the team, and the types of challenges they are working to solve. I especially appreciated the opportunity to discuss my experience and think through questions that reflected the work of the position. One area I could have improved personally was being more concise in a few of my responses. There were moments where I could have communicated my thought process more directly. Overall, though, I enjoyed the conversation and appreciated the interviewer's time, transparency, and insights into the team and TikTok."

"Overall, I had a very positive interview experience. The process felt organized and conversational, and I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the role, the team, and how the position contributes to the broader organization. The interviewer created a comfortable environment that allowed me to speak openly about my experience and approach to problem-solving. I felt that I communicated my experience and interest in the role well. One area I could have improved was being slightly more concise in a few of my responses. Overall, I left the conversation with a stronger understanding of the opportunity and a positive impression of American Express."

"The interview lasted about four hours and was divided into several sections. One section focused on behavioral questions, where I was asked about my past experiences, how I handle different situations, and examples of teamwork, leadership, and problem-solving. Another section assessed my math skills through quantitative and analytical questions. The final section was technical and conceptual, testing my understanding of fundamental technical concepts, my reasoning process, and how I approached solving technical problems rather than simply recalling facts."

"It went well and answered all questions. and did both leetcode questions asked one in each interview"

"Overall, I found the interview process to be quite long and demanding, but ultimately very fair. What went well was the thoroughness of the evaluation, which allowed me to showcase my skills while giving me a clear picture of the company's high standards. On the other hand, the multiple stages and assessments made the journey quite exhausting and lengthy. However, I understand that such a rigorous approach is necessary to ensure a great fit for both sides."

"The process was more rigorous than anything I'd done at other big tech companies, but the recruiter was actually accurate and helpful on what to prepare, which is rare, and I really appreciated that. A few things caught me off guard: one round included a coding test unlike anything I’d seen before. They asked me to create a voice agent with sub-500ms latency."

"The interview process was very fast. 4 rounds in almost one week. Their take-home assignment expressed that, given how much you were asked to complete in 3 days (PRD, GTM strategy, working prototype), they look for passion in the space and are quite technical and expect you to be."

"What went well was that I was professional, and I’m pretty sure I communicated clearly. What didn’t go well was I wasn’t able to explain the impact."

"Overall, the interview process was pretty straightforward and well organized. The interviewers were friendly and gave me a good opportunity to talk through my experience and approach to problems. The process was a little lengthy, but overall it was a positive experience."

"Easy normal behavioral questions and case study round was also easy cover every topics possible dont rely on AI tools"

"Well structured and highly professional, consisting of a phone screen followed by deep dives with senior leadership team and cross functional stakeholders"

"I first cleared the loop for a different Meta EM role and, while I was waiting in team matching, they opened an M1 security role and asked me to do the delta interviews for that. For the security path, the structure was recruiter screen, two technical screens, and then a six-round final loop covering security system design, security depth, coding, career motivation, people management, and project retrospective. The technical rounds were not the hardest part for me because the coding was pretty easy and the design rounds were very framework-driven. The rounds that mattered most were people management and project retrospective, and I actually got more push there because the examples had to map cleanly to the signal. I cleared the loop, and am waiting on next steps."

"The process was surprising because there was an AI OA where you would have to talk about a prompt. I think the transcript was evaluated by AI. What went well was the final interview where it was more conversational."

"The process was pretty standard, focused on Amazon leadership principles. Look up Exponent videos on how to answer behavioral questions."

"It was amazing. Had lovely conversations and it was amazing. I got nervous towards the end and the panel understood hence was not rejected at last round"

"The process was relatively straightforward. I don't think there were any questions there were misleading and everyone was nice and was professional."

"The process started with a recruiter screen made up of behavioral questions: my background, why Microsoft, and past product impact. The final round was more technical, with a product/system design question asking me to design an enterprise RAG system for finding files. What went well was the design round, because I structured it around the user problem first and then moved into ingestion, indexing stages"

"The process was pretty smooth and well organized. The recruiter gave a clear idea of what to expect, and the interviewers were friendly and easy to communicate with. The technical rounds were challenging but reasonable (LC mediums + system design). Behaviorals were much smoother than the technical rounds. Just focus on company values for behaviorals. One thing that caught me off guard was how quickly some of the questions escalated in difficulty, so time management was probably the hardest part."

"It was very straightforward and wasn’t too bad, although it depends on the interviewer. For the intern roles, they aren’t expecting as much from the candidate and want to hear your thinking out loud."

"The process was very precise. They are interviewing multiple students at the same college all at once and on the same day. You get feedback by the next day. Then you had to go in person to the offices for the final round interviews which takes 1 whole day"

"I went through 5 rounds for a Senior PM role: a recruiter screen, a hiring manager call, then three virtual on-sites covering Product Sense, Analytical/Metrics, and Googleyness/Leadership, followed by a cross-functional interview with an engineering partner. The whole process took about 5 weeks from initial outreach to offer. What went well: The recruiter was communicative throughout and gave clear prep guidance before each round, which helped me calibrate expectations. The Product Sense interview felt collaborative — the interviewer built on my ideas rather than just grading me, and I appreciated that the analytical round used a real, de-identified product problem rather than an abstract puzzle. What didn't go well: Scheduling took longer than expected between the hiring manager call and the on-site loop (about 10 days), which created some uncertainty. I also found the case interview time pressure tight — 45 minutes wasn't quite enough to fully structure and solve the prompt, so I'd have appreciated a few extra minutes to synthesize a recommendation at the end."

"The interview was really good All rounds where proper Coding round needs coder pad and really good"

"The process was clear and transparent. I knew who I needed to speak with next and what the process was going to be like"

"The process was smoooth and easy.Phone round followed by a technical interview.I got the offer but i didnt accept it"

"The process was structured and fairly rigorous, with a good mix of behavioral questions and case-based problem solving. The recruiter was clear about what to expect and provided helpful guidance on how to prepare. I appreciated that the interviewers were engaged and gave me room to explain my thinking rather than focusing only on the final answer. The main challenge was the pace of some of the case discussions, where there was limited time to structure the problem and work through the analysis. Overall, though, the process felt organized and relevant to the work of a management consultant."

"The process was fairly straightforward, although the company at the time was very focused on hiring people with the right values. They had a specific "credos" round, with a long-time employee who's focused on making sure you exhibit their top values/credos. The take-home case study was relatively straightforward for someone with an analytical/finance background."

"Just prepare your resume well, and get familiar with it. Also can prepare some questions regarding large user-based products, e.g. if the update will impact 5% of the users, what is our strategy? do it or not?"

"Straightforward interview, very friendly and basic questions. Would recommend brushing up on behavioral questions."