Interview Experience - 141 - Amazon | Software Development Engineer | SDE II (L5)
Summary:
Job Role: Software Development Engineer
Number of Rounds: 4
Offer Status: Rejected
Location: San Francisco
Candidate Name: Not disclosing due to signed NDA
Interview Process
A recruiter from Amazon New York reached out to me at the end of January for Software Development Engineer roles across Amazon locations in the US, Canada, and Mexico. I was given the flexibility to choose any office location, and I opted for San Francisco. I wasn’t actively looking at the time, but I couldn’t resist exploring the opportunity, especially in the Bay Area.
The process began with a recruiter call that included a mutual introduction, a discussion on compensation expectations, and an overview of the interview process. I received the online assessment (OA) link right after the call, with a one-week window to complete it.
The OA consisted of three parts:
DSA Questions: Two coding questions – one medium, one extremely difficult. Time-bound.
System Design Simulation: A scenario was given along with 5–6 multiple-choice decisions. Time-bound.
Behavioral Questions: Standard Amazon LP-style questions, with four options each. Not time-bound.
Within two days of completing the OA, I received feedback that I had cleared it. The recruiter scheduled a follow-up call where she walked me through each upcoming round, shared relevant preparation material, and explained expectations in detail. I asked for 3–4 weeks of preparation time, and she was supportive.
The interviews were scheduled in the first week of March and spanned two consecutive days, with two back-to-back rounds each day. There was no elimination between rounds — all four were conducted regardless of prior performance.
Post-interview, I got a feedback call within four days. I was told that although I had performed well, the offer would be at the SDE I level. Since I was approaching six years of industry experience, I declined the offer. A level-down just didn’t make sense at that stage in my career.
Preparation Guide
For preparation, I relied on deep learning rather than surface-level brushing. I’ve read Designing Data-Intensive Applications, which gave me a solid foundation in distributed systems. I also consistently follow engineering blogs from companies like Uber, Netflix, DoorDash, Spotify, and Facebook — these offer real-world perspectives that can't be found in textbooks.
In addition, I regularly watch system design and backend architecture talks on YouTube. Some channels that I found particularly useful include codeKarl#, G#ur#v S#n, and Na#end#a L. These sources have not only helped me in interviews but have become a part of my daily learning and on-the-job growth.
This continuous learning mindset has been more beneficial than any crash-course style prep. It made me comfortable thinking through design problems and handling edge cases in coding rounds.
Interview Rounds
Round 1: Bar Raiser
Duration: 60 minutes
Difficulty Level: Medium
Experience:
This round began with a long series of 6–7 Leadership Principle (LP) questions. The interviewer asked them back-to-back, which made the session feel very intense. At one point, I felt like I was giving away too many behavioral stories too early and might run out of scenarios for the remaining rounds.
After the LP questions, we transitioned into a coding problem. Ironically, it was the easiest question across all rounds — an array-based problem involving stack and monotonic array logic. Unfortunately, I misunderstood the question slightly due to how the example was described, and that derailed my solution. I ended up trying something entirely different and off-track.
What made it worse is that I’ve asked the same question to candidates I’ve interviewed in the past. I knew the correct approach — I just didn’t apply it due to a misinterpretation. I was mentally switched off by that point. The earlier LP grilling probably took a toll, but that’s not an excuse — I simply failed to execute.
Key Learnings:
Never jump to coding without fully understanding the question, even if it looks simple.
Don’t let a long behavioral section drain your focus for the technical part.
Familiar questions can be deceptively tricky under pressure. Stay sharp throughout.
Round 2: Clean Code
Duration: 60 minutes
Difficulty Level: Medium
Experience:
This round also started with 4 LP questions. I answered them calmly and kept them unique from the ones I had already shared.
For the technical section, the interviewer gave me a cache interface and asked me to implement two variations of it. The key challenge was selecting the right data structures, which I handled well.
I made a small mistake in one variation, which the interviewer pointed out. I fixed it quickly. However, I had written a common piece of logic in both variations — something I usually avoid. The interviewer asked me to refactor, and I did. After the fixes, we ended with a production-ready solution that handled all expected edge cases.
The interviewer was friendly and collaborative, which made the round smooth overall.
Key Learnings:
Always be on the lookout for duplicated logic — clean code matters.
Production-quality code means handling edge cases and ensuring readability.
Maintain a mindset of refactoring, even during high-pressure interview situations.
Round 3: System Design
Duration: 60 minutes
Difficulty Level: Hard
Experience:
System design has always been my strong suit, and this round turned out to be the most enjoyable. As expected, we started with 4–5 LP questions. My prep notes from the previous day really helped me give structured and diverse examples here.
The design problem was a well-known one — if you've done any system design prep, you’ve likely encountered it. I approached the problem methodically and covered all the essential components:
Scaling strategy
Caching layer
Messaging queues
Database sharding and locks
Consistency and availability trade-offs
Low-latency considerations
There were a few moments of out-of-the-box thinking where I proposed ideas that surprised the interviewer. The overall response to my design was very positive, and the interviewer appeared fully satisfied with how I approached it.
Key Learnings:
In system design rounds, depth and structure are more important than breadth.
Ask clarifying questions — they show maturity in understanding requirements.
Use real-world patterns and experiences wherever applicable.
Round 4: DSA
Duration: 60 minutes
Difficulty Level: Hard
Experience:
Yet again, this round started with LP questions — six of them. I was more comfortable by this time and handled them efficiently.
The coding question was a Graph-Matrix based LeetCode Medium-Hard problem. I took a few minutes to outline my approach, explained the edge cases, and then proceeded to code.
I completed the implementation well within time. It was correct, clean, and I walked the interviewer through every step clearly.
Key Learnings:
Be ready for LP questions in every round — Amazon emphasizes behavioral fit strongly.
Clearly articulate your thought process before writing any code.
For graph-based questions, spend a few minutes upfront planning the traversal or representation.
Final Thoughts
Although I didn’t accept the offer due to the level mismatch, the process was rigorous and insightful. It validated many things I already knew, exposed a few gaps I had overlooked, and reinforced the importance of focus during interviews.
A few things I would recommend for others preparing for SDE II roles at Amazon:
Take LP questions seriously. They show up in every round and can determine the outcome.
Treat every coding problem as a mini-project — readable code, edge case handling, and structure matter.
Don’t neglect system design. Prepare it deeply with real-world examples and scalable thinking.
Don’t let one bad round derail your confidence. Keep composure and finish strong.
Overall, it was a valuable learning experience. Even though the offer didn’t align with my expectations, I’m glad I went through the process.