Aha! seems like a genuinely neat place to work, but their interview process leaves something to be desired. I applied for both Lead Ruby on Rails Engineer and Sr. Front End Engineer positions. I had a total of 5 rounds of interviews (via Zoom) spanning 4 weeks, followed by one final meeting where the CTO explained why they were not extending an offer. I spoke with a Lead Engineer, the Director of Engineering (twice), the CTO, and the CEO. Praise: Aha! has taken the time to document, communicate, and instill their goals and values -- a rare occurrence, and the reason that I was attracted to the company. Furthermore, but no less important, they've managed to build a successful SaaS product that customers seem to love, all without sacrificing their values or needing outside capital. Everyone I talked to along the way was kind and sincere, and I didn't pick up on any inflated egos that can put a damper on technical interviews. The CEO speaks to all candidates (who get that far) and was interested in getting to know me as a person and not just my work, which was a great personal touch. Despite not extending an offer, the CTO took the time to explain why rather than simply going radio-silent. Areas of improvement: Despite investing the time to prepare for and attend 5 rounds, I wasn't provided any feedback along the way as to how I was doing or what the next steps would be. Interviews would end somewhat abruptly, so I was left wondering if I had done well or completely bombed, and then several days later would receive a semi-random email asking to schedule an interview, sometimes with only a few hours notice. I respect the fact that Aha! has an interview process that works for them, but some transparency around how a candidate is doing and where they are in the process would be helpful. At no point did I interact with an HR representative that might typically be present in an interview flow to provide some of the "hand hold-y" elements. Ultimately, I think my Achilles' heel was applying for two positions and, more specifically, one of which was a "Lead" role. A "Lead Engineer" position has subtle but critically important differences from a "Team Lead" position. Apparently "Team Lead" includes people-management responsibilities, whereas "Lead Engineer" does not. These differences were not made evident until the final interview round. I had to get all the way to the CEO to learn that people don't "leap frog" (my phrasing) into that position, but obtain that role by first being an individual contributor. I respect that Aha! applies certain responsibilities to certain roles, but I don't understand why that wasn't clarified earlier in the process -- is a candidate expected to know this? In my very last interview the CTO was apologetic about this, but it felt moot and after-the-fact. In applying for a Lead Engineer role, I provided details and experience related to both engineering and people-management which, unbeknownst to me, mismatched with the role I had applied for. Because it was unclear which position I was interviewing for, I mentioned that I would jump at the chance to be an individual contributor (which I had also applied for!) because I was genuinely interested in the company, but was then told that this mismatched with my dream job, which is ultimately why passed. I respect their final decision, but it absolutely felt like a catch-22. In summary: Aha! seems like an awesome company, but the interview process is cryptic and confusing. Me: *applies for Lead and IC roles* Aha!: Are you looking for a Lead position? Me: Yes Aha!: That's not the role we're looking for; do you want to be an IC? Me: Yes Them: That's not your dream job, so no thanks.