Candidates describe a Lightricks software engineer process built around a short coding screen, a take-home assignment, and a follow-up where you defend your work. Expect simple problems with escalating follow-ups, including threads.
$153K
Avg. Base Comp
$200K
Avg. Total Comp
Not reported
Typical Rounds
5 weeks
Process Length
Across five candidate reports, the common thread at Lightricks is that the take-home assignment is not the end of the evaluation. Four candidates mention a home task, and several describe a later conversation that returned to it. One senior candidate was surprised by a final round centered on the same web crawler project. A junior candidate was asked why they structured the code the way they did and what trade-offs they considered. Be ready to explain every trade-off you made.
The live coding problems reported are simple at the start. One candidate was asked for a non-recursive nth Fibonacci. Others described counting matches between two arrays, and one described summing an array without counting duplicates. The difficulty came from follow-ups. Candidates mention extra constraints, alternative approaches, time and space complexity, and how to use threads. Hash tables came up in two reports, once in a junior interview and once in an intern interview that went into hash functions and perfect hashing.
Stage order differs between reports. One candidate had a recruiter call, a Zoom technical, a take-home, an onsite review, and a manager conversation. Another started with the take-home. Only one candidate gives a total duration, about five weeks, so treat that timing as a single data point. Of the five candidates, one accepted an offer and four did not. Two described the tone as blunt or nitpicky, so practice explaining your reasoning precisely and calmly.
Synthesized from 5 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 Lightricks process.
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 Lightricks
Write a query to return the two students with the closest test scores and the score difference
| Question | |
|---|---|
| Identifying User Sessions | |
| Success Measurement | |
| Implementing the Fibonacci Sequence in Three Different Methods | |
| Best DAU | |
| Employee Salaries | |
| 2nd Highest Salary | |
| Subscription Overlap | |
| Empty Neighborhoods | |
| Merge Sorted Lists | |
| Top Three Salaries | |
| Monthly Customer Report | |
| Raining in Seattle | |
| P-value to a Layman | |
| Weighted Keys | |
| Google Maps Improvement | |
| Retailer Data Warehouse | |
| Top 3 Users | |
| Sum to N | |
| Bagging vs Boosting | |
| Daily Retention Summary | |
| Maximum Profit | |
| Permutation Palindrome | |
| Download Facts | |
| Liked Pages | |
| Hurdles In Data Projects | |
| Employee Salaries (ETL Error) | |
| Find the First Non-Repeating Character in a String | |
| User Experience Percentage | |
| Distance Traveled |
Synthesized from candidate reports. Individual experiences may vary.
Two candidates describe an initial phone call with a recruiter or HR. It was mostly an introduction and a discussion of their background and current work. One senior candidate also reports that HR later described an extra final round as a background discussion. Ask the recruiter to lay out every stage up front.
Candidates report technical interviews with one or two engineers, and two describe video sessions of about an hour. Reported problems include a non-recursive Fibonacci, counting matches across two arrays, and summing an array without duplicates. Follow-ups may cover complexity, alternative solutions, hash tables, and threading.
Four candidates mention a home assignment, and two of them report a one-week deadline. One candidate's task was to design a web crawler and save the results to a file. Another describes an open-ended assignment that tested design and implementation choices. The order varies: one candidate did it first, while others did it after a technical interview.
After the take-home, candidates report an onsite or senior-level conversation about their submission. One described an almost two-hour meeting mixing introductions, project discussion, and assignment review. Another was asked why they structured code a certain way and which trade-offs they considered. Prepare to justify every design decision.
Two candidates mention a final conversation with a team manager or lead. The accepted candidate describes a one-hour manager conversation that covered the role and included another technical question and some coding. The senior candidate reports a lead round that revisited the take-home. Expect it to include technical content, not only a background chat.
