Three rounds. First - phone interview get to know you, basic technical questions. Second - a live coding exercise and conversation with an architect - about two hours total. Third - a more relaxed conversation, more get to know you - less technical. Overall it was fine, the technical questions were basic for that level. The live coding exercise was fairly simple but the technical discussion after focused way too much on what and not why when it comes to .NET/C#. Like instead of explaining why I would do something, it was more: "explain async and await". Which are fair but it was one after another, explain this concept to me over and over. The better technical interviews I've had have focused more on what type of work I've done and why I've used such technologies, how I think, and how I work with others. During the initial phone screen I was asked a question along the lines: "do you get stuck on things for more than 30 minutes? do you have trouble completing tasks quickly?" Which those just led me to believe they're more interested in getting work done quickly than thoughtfully. This also aligns with another reviewer on here who was asked if they were willing to fire someone for underperforming. The architect during the second round was very nice and easy to talk to, but again too much time spent on drilling out technical concepts and not explaining real-world examples. Overall more interested in recitation of concepts and not how you work which I think is ultimately more important. They're also dead set on you being able to recite SOLID principles like a mantra. Which is fine but they're better explained through application than just talking about them over and over. Overall it was fairly neutral. None of the questions were out of bounds, but I'm more interested in how I would work with your team and vice versa than being a technical expert.