Don’t join the process unless someone internal is vouching for you. Otherwise you risk investing a huge amount of time into a system that gives very little back and shows very little consideration for candidates. I went through a 30-minute screening, then a hiring manager interview. After that came the home task, an extremely open-ended brief that basically says “Do whatever you can in 7 days.” It even includes “DON’T BE SHY, we love crazy ideas,” which comes across as “produce as much as possible for free.” I carved time out of my personal life, delivered a strong, well-structured piece of work, covered everything in the brief, and even added extra strategic clarity to make evaluation easier. I shared the Figma link one evening and saw it was opened briefly the next morning. Based on the activity, the reviewer spent only a few minutes looking through isolated layers rather than the actual problem-solving or detailed annotations. It made the evaluation criteria feel very shallow. What came back was a generic automated rejection email. No feedback, no acknowledgment, nothing proportionate to the effort. When I pushed for specifics, the feedback I eventually received was inconsistent, focused on trivial details, and in a few cases contradicted the actual work in the file. The overall impression is a process that demands a lot from candidates but doesn’t invest seriously in reviewing what it asks for. Candidates are encouraged to “go big,” but the assessment feels rushed, selective and disconnected from the level of effort requested. It’s hard not to see this as disrespectful. If this is how candidates are treated before joining — asked for major time commitments with minimal reciprocity — it raises fair questions about what the internal culture might be like. The lack of consideration appears early in the experience. For them, it's very convenient to have a standardised brief in which they don't have to sweat, only to shut down great work in a matter of minutes. Revolut is so toxic they believe to have the entitlement to do that, even at the cost of burning out honest and competent people. After the episode, I spoke to other candidate that has been to the same process and the story is the same. My conclusion: this hiring process does not seem optimised for identifying strong designers, but rather for maintaining a comfortable internal status quo. Revolut’s success clearly comes from its aggressive product-market fit and financial offering, not from design excellence, and the recruitment experience reflects that. If you value your time, or have a family or other serious commitments, think carefully before engaging with this process.

I was approached by one of their recruiters via LinkedIn, and the whole interview process took about five weeks. The first stage was a 30-minute screening call to get to know me and my background. The second stage was a 45-minute design presentation where I walked through some recent work and my design process. The third stage was a take-home design task over five days. I completed and submitted the task on time, but this is where things really fell apart. I received an automated email saying I didn’t make it through to the next round, even including the line “after much consideration,” which didn’t feel genuine. When I followed up to ask for feedback, they couldn’t provide any specifics, which made me feel like my work hadn’t even been reviewed properly. I followed up again and still got no response. Overall, I was really disappointed given how much time and effort I put into the process. After reading other reviews, it seems I’m not the only one who’s had this experience, which makes me think this lack of respect for candidates might also extend to how they treat employees.