Chubb Software Engineer candidates describe an online coding test, then technical rounds on OOP, DBMS, SQL and basic DSA, then a managerial or HR conversation. Resume projects come up in most accounts.
$105K
Avg. Base Comp
$120K
Avg. Total Comp
2-4 rounds
Typical Rounds
Not reported
Process Length
Candidates for Chubb's Software Engineer role describe a process that rewards knowing your own resume and core CS fundamentals more than advanced algorithm drills. Several candidates report opening with a HackerRank-style online assessment of five coding questions. Difficulty is described unevenly: some call it easy-to-medium, while others report two hard problems, or a mix running up to hard.
Technical rounds that follow are described as heavily fundamentals-driven. Candidates mention OOP (including the four pillars), DBMS, SQL, recursion, linked lists, operating systems and networking. One candidate reports a SQL question using subqueries and a window function. Live coding is generally described as light, such as Two Sum in Python, an Armstrong-number check or binary search. One candidate reports a graph problem (number of islands) plus ML and deep-learning fundamentals.
Project discussion is the most repeated theme. Candidates report being asked to explain the purpose of each project, defend design choices and field follow-ups on anything mentioned in their introduction. Final rounds are reported as managerial or HR, covering teamwork, why you want Chubb, and in one account a system design exercise. Candidates also report interviewer style varying from friendly to dismissive, so prepare clear, self-contained answers. Reported outcomes are mixed, with offers and rejections both common.
Synthesized from 22 candidate reports by our editorial team.
Had an interview recently?
Share your experience. Unlock the full guide.
Real interview reports from people who went through the Chubb process.
I interviewed at Chubb for a Software Engineer role, and the process consisted of four distinct rounds. First came a shortlisting phase, followed by an online exam that I needed to pass to advance. The technical interview was where things got serious — it ran about thirty minutes and was conducted virtually. The interviewer focused heavily on object-oriented programming concepts, asking me to explain OOP pillars and demonstrate my understanding of core design principles. They also threw in a straightforward DSA question, nothing too exotic, more on the easier side of the spectrum. What really mattered to them was how I discussed my projects and the technical decisions I'd made. They dug into my resume and asked me to walk through specific work I'd done, which meant I should have prepared my project explanations way more thoroughly than I did. The final round was a standard HR conversation. Overall, the difficulty was medium, but it hinged less on algorithmic complexity and more on whether I could articulate OOP concepts clearly and speak credibly about my own experience. I struggled with some of the technical questions and wasn't confident enough in my project discussions, which ultimately cost me. The interviewers were genuinely nice and conversational, not trying to trick me or make it adversarial, but I could tell they were looking for someone with deeper technical depth than what I demonstrated.
Prep tip from this candidate
Deep dive into OOP pillars (encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, abstraction) with concrete examples from your own projects — Chubb will test this extensively. Also, prepare to discuss at least 2-3 projects in detail with specific technical decisions, and brush up on easy DSA (string manipulation, frequency counting) rather than medium/hard problems.
Share your own interview experience to unlock all reports, or subscribe for full access.
Sourced from candidate reports and verified by our team.
Topics based on recent interview experiences.
Featured question at Chubb
Select the 2nd highest salary in the engineering department
| Question | |
|---|---|
| Top Three Salaries | |
| Get Top N Frequent Words | |
| Find Duplicate Numbers in a List | |
| Employee Salaries | |
| Bagging vs Boosting | |
| Random SQL Sample | |
| P-value to a Layman | |
| Rectangle Overlap | |
| Hurdles In Data Projects | |
| Size of Joins | |
| Total Spent on Products | |
| Delivery Estimate Model | |
| Type-ahead Search | |
| Always Excited Users | |
| Three Zebras | |
| Precision and Recall | |
| Success Measurement | |
| Target Indices | |
| Duplicate Rows | |
| RAG Strict Source Control | |
| Transformer Encoder Layer | |
| Type I and II Errors | |
| Digitizing Student Test Scores | |
| Common Prefix | |
| Count Transactions | |
| Swap Variables | |
| Integer String Addition | |
| Implementing the Fibonacci Sequence in Three Different Methods | |
| Data Pipelines and Aggregation |
Synthesized from candidate reports. Individual experiences may vary.
Several candidates report an online test of about five coding questions, mostly arrays, greedy and standard DSA. Difficulty is described inconsistently, from easy-to-medium to two genuinely hard problems, so practice timed sets across levels. Some candidates describe it as the main early filter.
Candidates report a technical round covering OOP, DBMS, SQL, recursion or linked lists, and sometimes OS and networking. Live coding is usually described as easy, such as Two Sum, Armstrong numbers or binary search. Some panels may split by language, such as Python and .NET topics like OAuth.
Candidates commonly report that projects drive much of the conversation. Interviewers may ask for each project's purpose, your contribution, the challenges faced and why you chose specific approaches. Anything mentioned in your introduction can reportedly become a follow-up question, so prepare each claim in detail.
Candidates report a further round mixing technical questions with manager-style discussion of projects, teamwork and background. One candidate describes SDE2-level probing on trade-offs and scalability, and another reports a system design exercise. Expect depth to vary by interviewer and level.
Several candidates describe a final HR or managerial conversation covering behavioral fit, why you want Chubb, and sometimes puzzles or logical-reasoning questions. Prepare a specific answer to why Chubb and why you are a fit. Decisions are reported to come after this stage, though communication speed varies.
