For me, the entire interview process with N26 was a huge red flag.

The initial HR interview went well, and I was then invited to complete a Codility assessment. The exercises were fairly straightforward and very similar to the kind of problems you find on LeetCode, HackerRank, and other coding platforms. In other words, they were standard algorithmic exercises that many software engineers practice regularly.

I spent around an hour and a half completing the assessment. Afterwards, I received a rejection stating that a significant portion of my solution had allegedly been copied from an external source. No evidence was provided, and I wasn’t given any opportunity to explain my approach or discuss the code.

In 2026, with AI tools available to everyone, I understand why companies want to be careful. However, if there is any doubt about a candidate’s work, the most reasonable approach would be to move forward with a live technical interview and ask targeted questions about the solution. If a candidate genuinely wrote the code, they should be able to explain every design choice, every algorithm, and every line of it. Rejecting someone solely based on an automated suspicion, without giving them a chance to demonstrate their knowledge, doesn’t seem like a fair hiring process.

What disappointed me even more was how impersonal the communication felt. The rejection email looked like a generic template, and only after I challenged the decision did I receive a more detailed explanation.

After this experience, I decided that I have no interest in pursuing opportunities with N26 in the future. The process left me with the impression that candidates are judged more by automated signals than by their actual technical abilities, and that’s not the kind of hiring process I want to be part of.

I have a question about my job and expectations.