I’ve never written a review like this before, but if it helps even one candidate avoid a frustrating and time-consuming experience, it’s worth sharing. After completing a solid technical and behavioral interview, I was given a verbal offer through email and discussed salary with the recruiter. I was clearly told both in person and over email that I sent to confirm that the onsite would be the final step. Based on that commitment, I flew out to their Chicago office. Once I got there, the onsite “visit” turned out to be a disorganized interview in disguise. I was expected to shadow developers but had to initiate and carry the conversations myself, as it seemed like there was no clear plan for what we were supposed to cover. I also sat in on meetings and had a brief conversation with the CTO, who had some questions ready but did not ask about any of the projects I had worked on. After returning home, I was told I needed to meet with the CEO. When I asked about this, the recruiter said the CEO had been traveling during the onsite visit despite prior assurances that there would be no additional steps or evaluations. At that point, it felt like the process was being extended indefinitely. I tried to get a clear answer, but received vague responses and had no option but to take another interview. After the visit, I also became sick. The entire process dragged on for over a month, ending with a final video call that felt unnecessary. This could have been handled via email with constructive feedback rather than requiring a call just to say they were not moving forward. If I had known the verbal offer could be withdrawn and how inconsistent and disorganized the process would be, I never would have agreed to travel. I found it difficult to rely on the information provided by the recruiter, as she often gave vague answers. In all her emails and interview invitations, she used the subject line “Next Steps,” even when she stated a given interview would be the final one. In fact, the last email, where she scheduled a call just to say they were not moving forward, was titled “Follow up and Next Steps,”. I also noticed a discrepancy in the job title. The role was originally posted as mid-level, but during the onsite, it was referred to multiple times as entry-level. After I brought this up, the job title on LinkedIn was changed, though the description remained the same elsewhere. I have not encountered this level of disorganization and lack of transparency in a hiring process, especially when I was clearly qualified for the role.