Get Premium
Meta E6 (Staff) Software Engineer Interview Guide
A comprehensive guide to the Meta staff interview process.
The Meta E6 staff software engineer interview process starts with a recruiter screen, followed by a technical phone screen, then moves to a full loop of 5 to 6 interviews covering coding, design, behavioral, and project retrospective rounds. You'll typically choose between System Design or Product Architecture for your design interview based on your background and the role's focus. The entire process usually takes around 6 weeks from start to finish, though it can stretch to 8 weeks or more if scheduling gets tricky or the hiring committee needs extra time to deliberate.
E6 interviews differ from senior engineer interviews because they emphasize technical leadership and influence across teams. Meta wants to see evidence that you've driven complex projects from start to finish and made architectural decisions that impacted multiple teams. The behavioral interview digs deeper into conflict resolution and leading without authority, while the design round expects you to think beyond just solving the technical problem to considering organizational impact. Meta made some tweaks to the E6 process in 2023, adding more leadership focused questions because they found that pure technical skills alone weren't enough to predict success at the staff level.
The interview consists of 5 total rounds:
- Technical Phone Screen (Coding)
- Onsite (Usually virtual)
- Coding
- System Design or Product Architecture
- Behavioral
- Project Retrospective
If you pass, you'll move onto team match and finally, offer negotiation.
Interview Rounds
Technical Phone Screen (Coding & Behavioral)
The technical phone screen is your first real hurdle in Meta's E6 process. Meta designed it to get levelling signal (e.g. should they down level you to E5 for the onsite) filter out candidates who can't code under pressure. You'll spend an hour with an engineer (often a hiring manager) — about 35 minutes solving two medium coding problems in CoderPad while explaining your thought process out loud, followed by 25 minutes of behavioral questions. The format is straightforward but unforgiving. You can't execute code, so you can't test your solution by running it.
You'll need to solve two LeetCode medium level problems while continuously narrating your approach, which means you're multitasking between solving problems and teaching. The interviewer wants to see how you break down problems, choose data structures, and handle edge cases, all while maintaining a clear explanation of your reasoning.
"Meta coding is simple enough - they're mentioning hard but I bet they never give you a hard task - not possible to solve hard in 17min..."
— Recent Meta E6 candidate
The problems typically focus on classic algorithms and data structures. Think tree traversals, dynamic programming, graph problems, or array manipulations. Meta expects more than just getting the right answer. You need to discuss time and space complexity, considering alternative approaches, and handling edge cases without prompting.
Your interviewer will provide hints if you get stuck, and how you respond to those hints matters significantly. They're testing your ability to collaborate and incorporate feedback, which becomes crucial at the staff level where you'll need to work with other senior engineers on complex problems.
The evaluation focuses heavily on your approach to solving problems and code correctness, but communication clarity carries significant weight too. If you go silent while coding, interviewers usually interpret that as a red flag, even if you eventually produce the right answer.
Overall the phone screen has slightly more relaxed standards than the onsite.
Onsite
Coding Interview (1 round)
The onsite coding round feels remarkably similar to your technical phone screen, but the bar is slightly higher. You're still solving two medium problems (in the average case) in CoderPad over 45 minutes, but the bar for what constitutes a "good" solution sits noticeably higher. Your interviewer expects you to write cleaner code, handle edge cases more proactively, and demonstrate the kind of systematic approach to solving problems that comes with advanced experience.
The evaluation criteria shift slightly toward implementation quality and interactive communication. Your interviewer wants to see that you can write production ready code under pressure, not just arrive at the right algorithmic approach. This means paying attention to variable names, handling null cases without being prompted, and structuring your solution in a way that would be maintainable in a real codebase.
Since you can't execute your code, developing a systematic approach to mental verification becomes crucial. Walk through your solution with concrete examples, trace through edge cases out loud, and don't be afraid to catch and fix bugs as you spot them. Your interviewer would rather see you identify and correct an issue than submit code with obvious problems.
The problems tend to focus on core computer science fundamentals. Tree traversals, graph algorithms, or string manipulation.
"There weren't many surprises. I definitely could not spend as much learning all the different data structures and hence the question - "Remove Sub-Folders from the Filesystem" caught me by surprise. If I had learnt Trie in advance, it would have been relatively easy to solve."
— Recent Meta E6 candidate
For staff level candidates, there's often an optimization follow up question even if you solve the initial problem correctly. Your interviewer might ask "How would you handle this if the input was 10x larger?" or "What if we needed to support real time updates?" These follow ups test whether you can think beyond the immediate solution to consider scalability and real world constraints.
Live, up-to-date
Most commonly asked Coding questions
Meta
Staff
System Design or Product Architecture Interview (1 round)
This 45 minute interview is key for E6 level determination and you'll get to choose between two types: System Design or Product Architecture. Both use Excalidraw as the standard whiteboarding tool, so practice with this platform beforehand.
"40 minutes for System Design is tight on time. There is not a lot of room for meandering/thinking through the problem. Even if the problem is not in your domain."
— Recent Meta E6 candidate
There's significant confusion about these two interview types, even within Meta itself. Many interviewers don't fully understand the distinction, and you might get similar questions in both formats. Here's what actually happens.
Product Architecture
Product Architecture is almost always a user facing product question. You'll design systems like Ticketmaster, Uber, Instagram, or Facebook News Feed. Complete products that users directly interact with. The focus is more on API design, user experience flows, data modeling, and client server interactions but you'll still design the full backend of the system in the majority of cases.
Live, up-to-date
Most commonly asked Product Architecture questions
Meta
Staff
System Design
System Design can go either way. In theory, System Design focuses more on infrastructure and backend components like distributed caches, rate limiters, ad click aggregators, or data pipelines. But in reality, you'll often get asked to design user facing products too. The difference is that when you get a user facing product in System Design, the discussion tends to focus more on the backend architecture, scalability challenges, database design, and system internals rather than user experience flows.
Live, up-to-date
Most commonly asked System Design questions
Meta
Staff
Both interview types evaluate the same four competencies: problem navigation, solution design, technical excellence, and technical communication. The main practical differences are around team matching. Product Architecture interviews are for "SWE, Product" (fullstack engineer) positions, while System Design interviews are for "SWE, Infrastructure" (backend engineer) positions.
The competency breakdown is as follows.
- Problem Navigation: Effectively identifies and understands the core challenges and requirements of a system. Prioritizes and focuses on the most critical aspects of the problem.
- Solution Design: Crafts scalable, efficient, and robust system architectures. Balances trade offs between performance, scalability, maintainability, and cost.
- Technical Excellence: Demonstrates a deep understanding of various technologies, tools, and best practices. Stays updated with the latest trends and innovations in system design.
- Technical Communication: Clearly and effectively communicates design decisions, trade offs, and the rationale behind them. Can explain complex technical concepts in a way that is accessible to both technical and non technical stakeholders.
This choice affects team matching since different teams look for different skill sets. If you get a user facing product question in System Design, expect deeper technical discussions about scalability, database sharding, caching strategies, and handling millions of concurrent users. If you get the same question in Product Architecture, expect more focus on API design, user workflows, and feature implementation.
For more details on the differences and which to choose, read our comprehensive guide.
Behavioral Interview (1 round)
The behavioral round is where Meta really tests whether you can operate at staff engineer level beyond just writing code. You'll spend 45 minutes with an engineer (often a hiring manager or senior IC) discussing your past experiences, focusing heavily on leadership situations, cross team collaboration, and how you've handled complex interpersonal challenges. This isn't your typical "tell me about a time when" interview. The questions dig deep into scenarios that require the kind of influence and ownership expected from E6 engineers.
Meta interviewers are trained to probe and challenge your answers. Your interviewer won't just accept your initial story. They'll probe into the details of your decision making process, ask about alternative approaches you considered, and want to understand how other people reacted to your actions.
The conversation typically covers several key areas. Technical leadership and ownership, collaboration and conflict management, communication and empathy, and results focused thinking. They're particularly interested in situations where you had to lead without formal authority or navigate disagreements with peers or stakeholders.
"Don't underestimate the importance of the behavioral interview. I knew it would be my Achilles' heel, so I had to rewire my thinking to become a better storyteller. I had great experiences, but I needed to communicate them effectively."
— Recent Meta E6 candidate
You'll be evaluated on 5 core competencies.
- Resolving Conflicts: Handles conflicts and challenging relationships appropriately. Addresses conflicts rather than trying to avoid it. Approaches difficult conversations or situations with empathy for others perspectives, needs, and goals.
- Driving Results: Drives progress towards results by balancing analytics and decisive action. Pushes self and others to deliver against objectives. Is self directive and proactive in making progress with the most critical work despite obstacles or roadblocks.
- Embracing Ambiguity: Maintains effectiveness operating in unambiguous and quickly changing situations. Comfortable making decisions and sustains high levels of productivity, despite missing information or lack of clarity.
- Growing Continuously: Seeks out and values opportunities to grow and learn, even when it comes from failure or mistakes.
- Communicating Effectively: Provides timely, clear, concise information with others and adjusts communications to be appropriate for the audience.
The key to succeeding in this round is authenticity combined with strategic story selection. Choose examples that demonstrate staff level scope and complexity, but don't oversell your role or downplay challenges you faced. Your interviewer appreciates candidates who can reflect honestly on what worked, what didn't, and what they learned from difficult situations.
Live, up-to-date
Most commonly asked Behavioral questions
Meta
Staff
1. Tell me about a time you had a conflict with a coworker. How did you resolve it?
2. What project are you most proud of?
3. Can you share an example where you resolved a significant conflict between different teams or departments in your organization?
4. Describe a time you failed and how you managed the situation
5. Give me an example of a tough or critical piece of feedback you received.
Project Retrospective Interview (1 round)
The project retrospective round is where Meta really tests whether you can operate at staff engineer level beyond just solving coding problems or designing systems from scratch. You'll spend 45 minutes with an engineer walking through a significant project you've worked on, but this isn't a casual conversation about your resume. Your interviewer expects you to demonstrate the kind of end to end technical leadership and cross team influence that defines E6 roles at Meta.
Your interviewer won't just listen to your project summary and move on. They'll probe into your specific technical decisions, ask why you chose one approach over alternatives, and want to understand how you navigated the organizational complexities that come with large scale projects.
You'll be sketching parts of your system architecture in Excalidraw while explaining your approach, which means you need to get comfortable drawing and talking simultaneously about complex technical concepts. The visual component becomes crucial when you're explaining how different services interact, how data flows through your system, or how you handled scaling challenges. Your interviewer will often point to specific parts of your diagram and ask deep dive questions about implementation details or alternative approaches you considered.
The evaluation focuses heavily on technical depth, ownership and leadership, impact measurement, and your ability to reflect on the experience. For staff level candidates, there's an expectation that your project involved some combination of architectural decision making, cross team coordination, and long term technical strategy.
Choose a project that showcases the breadth of skills Meta expects from E6 engineers. The best project retrospectives tell a story of technical leadership that goes beyond individual contribution to demonstrate real impact on teams, systems, and business outcomes.
What to Expect
Based on feedback from candidates who've been through Meta's E6 interview process, here are key insights about what you'll actually experience.
What Surprised Candidates Most
The tight time constraints in system design rounds catch many candidates off-guard, even those who've practiced extensively. "40 minutes for System Design is tight on time. There is not a lot of room for meandering/thinking through the problem," noted one candidate who spent too much time on requirements gathering and didn't leave enough room for depth discussions on failure modes and bottlenecks.
Several candidates were surprised by how much interviewers deviated from expected formats. One candidate faced two product architecture interviews where "one was API-focused and not following the hello interview format at all. I was caught off guard there and had to improvise the whole way through." Another found their behavioral interview completely different from documented experiences: "I did not have the opportunity to give my 'Tell me about yourself' elevator pitch and the interviewer had a set of prepared questions and very obviously was stopping me mid speech, reading through his list, and choosing a new question to ask."
The depth of technical probing also surprised many. "Some interviewers did a slightly tweak on the system design problem prompt, would completely expect a different solution," shared one candidate. Interviewers frequently modify constraints mid-interview to test your knowledge of alternative approaches, and they expect you to adapt your entire design accordingly.
Many candidates were pleasantly surprised by how supportive the interviewers actually were. "Interviewers want you to succeed, because it's easier for them to write about someone that succeeds than someone who fails. So, listen careful, they really want to help you." The stress levels were often self-imposed rather than created by hostile interviewers.
Most Effective Preparation Strategies
Targeted practice with Meta-specific questions proved invaluable. "Check Hello Interview's recent system design questions by frequency. They helped me prioritize the problems I reviewed repeatedly while connecting the dots with specific areas for deep dives based on my experience," explained one successful candidate. Our question lists with actual Meta problems allowed candidates to focus their limited prep time on the most likely scenarios.
Mock interviews consistently emerged as the most impactful preparation method. "The behavioral mock interview with Stefan was by far the most valuable part of my preparation strategy. It highlighted just how unprepared I was to clearly communicate the impact of my work in behavioral interviews," shared one candidate. Another emphasized: "For Staff level role you need... the mock interviews providing customized feedback on aspects you may not see yourself. I think they're extremely valuable, for system design I would do 2-3 mocks with different interviewers to get more perspectives."
Our Guided Practice for system design received particularly strong feedback. "The guided Practice for System Design practice here at Hello Interview. Followed closely by the deep dives on the relevant technologies," was cited as crucial preparation. The structured format helped candidates manage time effectively: "Our answer format for product architecture interviews (FR, NFR, Entities, HLD, ...) was super invaluable in time management."
Repetitive practice emerged as a key theme. "Repetition was the key for me - I think I did good in the areas where I was able to revise multiple times," noted one candidate. Another successful approach was daily consistency: "Practice 3-4 medium problems daily for 6 weeks" for coding, combined with "Do 10+ mocks. Practice system design as much as if you are practicing leetcode coding problems."
Top Tips from Successful Candidates
Writing out requirements yourself during system design practice proved crucial: "In addition to doing the System Design exercises, practice actually writing the requirements yourself. My first system design was a wake-up call because the exercises write the requirements for you." This practical advice addresses a gap many candidates discover too late.
Time management strategies were consistently emphasized. "Have a format that you always follow and know how long each section should take. Time your practices and actual interviews," advised one candidate. Another reinforced: "Be quicker on 'high level design' even if it is insufficient/not interesting. You want to leave room for deliberate discussion on tradeoffs, bottlenecks, and failure modes."
For coding rounds, knowing baseline solutions was key: "Know the solutions to as many questions as possible. Expect to have to modify them as you'll most likely get modified versions of the questions. Knowing the baseline solutions lets you save energy and focus on what's different + explaining." This approach helps with the tight 17-minute per problem timeframe.
Communication tactics made a significant difference. "Give detailed justification for all the components you use in your system design. This will help build high confidence with the interviewer and get him engaged." Active engagement was also crucial: "Make sure you actively gather scale metrics at the beginning and call out that you'll use them for napkin math later if needed."
Persistence during interviews, even when things seemed to go poorly, paid off. "Don't stop trying in the middle of the interview, even if you think you've already failed. Your goal is to provide enough signals, regardless of whether you fully complete the question or not."
Additional Insights
The interview experience varies significantly based on interviewer style and specific question variations. "The interviewer makes or breaks the interview," observed one candidate, emphasizing how much the specific person across from you affects your experience.
Results can be surprising in both directions. "In one of my system design rounds, I felt I didn't perform well, but the result was surprisingly positive. It turns out that the interviewers were assessing how I approached challenges during difficult moments," shared one candidate. Conversely, "Even though I completed all coding rounds with optimal solution, I missed some edge cases and was rejected for that - maybe."
Down-leveling from E6 to E5 is common, even with strong performance. Several candidates passed but were offered E5 roles, often due to specific technical depth concerns in system design rounds.
The process proved to be highly preparation-dependent rather than purely talent-based. "The interview is not judging your talent or current experience, rather how prepared you are for Meta," summarized one candidate. This insight underscores why systematic preparation with company-specific resources and mock interviews makes such a significant difference in outcomes.
Login to track your progress
Schedule a mock interview
Meet with a FAANG senior+ engineer or manager and learn exactly what it takes to get the job.
Your account is free and you can post anonymously if you choose.