The first round was a Codility test with four problems. I completed three and was then invited to a virtual technical round. This round included a heap-based coding problem, system design questions, and Java questions. I cleared this round.

The third round required me to visit the VISA office for a purely technical assessment. This focused on Java 17 features, deep dives into Spring internals, and High-Level Design (HLD).

This was followed by a fourth round with a Technical Manager, focusing on Low-Level Design (LLD), and a fifth round with another Technical Manager, which covered my current projects and the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).

The third, fourth, and fifth rounds took place on the same day, from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM.

I later received a response from the VISA recruitment team stating I was not selected. I requested feedback from the HR team. They communicated that I was not strong in programming, as assessed in the third round, and expressed surprise at how I had cleared the first two rounds.

I questioned why the subsequent rounds (4 and 5) were conducted. They explained that all interview rounds are typically held for on-site positions.

This experience felt like a waste of my time, and the feedback was somewhat personal, with the comment about my performance in the first two rounds.

General advice for the recruiters at VISA: please be more careful in your word choice when delivering negative feedback to candidates. Additionally, consider improving the quality of your interviews. MAANG-level interviews should correspond to MAANG-level compensation.

For candidates: use this interview experience for practice.

1. Maximize platform train allocation.

2. Design the shipment stock availability checkers LLD.

3. Design a log and metrics monitoring system.

4. Design a microservices with transaction control.