Contents
Key Takeaways
Most interviews measure performance under pressure, not real ability, making whiteboards and trivia questions poor predictors of engineering success.
The best evaluation method is watching candidates work, using realistic tasks like debugging, refactoring, and code reviews to judge real competency.
Strong developers demonstrate clarity of thought, technical judgment, and communication, not just the ability to memorize algorithms.
A structured, repeatable process with clear rubrics reduces bias and ensures fair, consistent evaluations across all candidates.
High-signal assessments save engineering time, allowing teams to focus only on candidates who’ve already proven they can deliver.
As an ex-Oracle, ex-Microsoft engineering leader, I've conducted over 500 technical interviews globally. My biggest lesson? Most companies are doing it all wrong. They rely on weak signals like resumes and algorithm puzzles, leading to costly mis-hires.
You're trying to find a reliable way to know if a developer can actually do the job before you hire them. The single best way is to watch them perform a realistic work task.
This guide distills what works, what doesn't, and why short, real-world job simulations are the only way to get a clear signal on a candidate's true abilities, saving you time and preventing hiring mistakes.
At a glance, here are the 6 most popular methods to evaluate developer's technical skills (and which we recommend and not recommend)
I've been through hundreds of hiring cycles, and I've seen what works and what's a complete waste of time. Before we dive deep, here is a quick overview of the most common methods hiring managers use to vet developers.
Think of this as a reality check for your current process. It highlights why the vitality of testing hard skills is everything, and why most methods miss the mark.
Checking their resume thoroughly (The worst method)
Digging into their programmer portfolio (Good, but not scalable)
Taking a look at their GitHub account (Good, but not scalable)
Live coding interviews & Programming tests (Time-consuming and often irrelevant)
Take-home assignments (Disrespects candidate time and is hard to review)
Real job simulation assessments (The absolute best method)
Here’s a quick comparison table to lay it all out.
Method | Accuracy | Time Investment (Per Candidate) | Scalability | My Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Resume & Portfolio Review | Very Low | High | Very Low | Not Recommended |
GitHub Account Review | Low | Very High | Very Low | Not Recommended |
Programming Tests | Low | Low | High | Not Recommended |
Live Coding Interviews | Medium | Very High | Low | Use Sparingly |
Take-Home Assignments | Medium | High | Low | Use Sparingly |
Real Job Simulations | Very High | Low | Very High | Highly Recommended |
As you can see, there's a clear winner. Now, let's unpack why most of these popular methods are fundamentally broken and why simulations give you the strongest signal.
Want a hiring process that actually reveals real engineering skill?
Utkrusht uses job simulations to show how candidates think, build, and solve problems. Get started today and hire with confidence.
1. Checking the resume thoroughly (the worst method)
Let’s be honest—reviewing stacks of resumes feels productive, but it's a trap. It's a comfortable habit we've fallen into, but this old-school method is fundamentally broken. It doesn't scale, it’s often misleading, and it burns through your most precious resource: your senior engineers' time.
A polished resume is more a test of a candidate's marketing skills than their coding chops. I've seen it a thousand times—resumes stuffed with keywords for technologies the person barely touched. It’s a game of appearances, not a real measure of deep, hands-on knowledge.
Now, imagine you have over 100 applicants for one role. The math just falls apart. If you spend a mere 15 minutes on each profile (which is barely scratching the surface), you've just torched an entire work week of an engineering leader's time on the initial screen. That’s a massive opportunity cost.
The core problem is that resume screening rewards self-promoters, not necessarily the best engineers. The most talented developers I know are usually too busy shipping code to spend their weekends curating the perfect online persona. This creates a dangerous bias, favoring candidates who are brilliant at describing their work over those brilliant at doing the work.
The industry is waking up to this disconnect. The 2025 CoderPad and CodinGame State of Tech Hiring report found that while 71.61% of recruiters still lean heavily on resumes, a staggering 72% of candidates feel their resumes don't actually represent their skills. The gap couldn't be clearer.
This data just confirms what I’ve seen for years: we're using a tool that both sides of the table agree is broken. We cling to it out of familiarity, not effectiveness. The result is a slow, biased, and inaccurate screening process that costs companies top talent.
2-4. Portfolios, GitHub, and Stack Overflow (Good idea, bad in practice)
Okay, so you decide to dig into a candidate's programmer portfolio, GitHub, or Stack Overflow history. These seem like a good next step to understand their thought process, right? In theory, yes. In practice, it's a time-consuming rabbit hole that rarely scales.
A portfolio is a highlight reel. You don't see the messy reality—the late-night debugging sessions or the compromises made to ship on time. You're only seeing the polished final product, which gives you zero insight into how they actually solve problems day-to-day.
GitHub profiles can be just as misleading. A green wall of contributions tells you nothing about the quality or complexity of that code. Many profiles are ghost towns or graveyards of forked repos and trivial "hello world" projects.
Let's be real: your best developers are probably too busy shipping your product to curate a perfect GitHub history. This manual approach is riddled with bias and is impossible to apply consistently across hundreds of candidates. It’s a high-effort, low-signal game that creates a massive bottleneck at the top of your funnel.
This entire manual review process is why we need better ways to hire software engineers without wasting weeks on subjective analysis.
5. Live Coding and Programming Tests (Poor predictors of skill)
The next logical step for many is a live coding interview or a programming test. On the surface, these seem more practical. The brutal truth? They’re deeply flawed and poor predictors of on-the-job performance.
Live coding interviews are less about competence and more about how well someone handles performance anxiety. You stick a candidate in front of a whiteboard and ask them to solve an abstract algorithm puzzle under a ticking clock. This setup rewards people who grind LeetCode, not necessarily the best engineers for your team.
Programming tests, like multiple-choice quizzes, are even worse. They test for trivia and memorization, skills that have almost no correlation with real-world engineering ability.
The cost to your team is huge. Every hour a senior engineer spends watching a candidate sweat through a whiteboard problem is an hour they aren't shipping code. The whole process is artificial. Real engineering isn’t a 45-minute sprint; it’s a marathon of research, collaboration, and problem-solving over time.
You end up hiring great test-takers, not great engineers. And you filter out brilliant, practical developers who just don’t perform well under a microscope.
6. Take-Home Assignments (Well-intentioned but flawed)
What about take-home assignments? They seem like the perfect solution. Candidates work in their own environment, use their own tools, and take their time. What could go wrong?
A lot, actually. The single biggest issue is the time commitment. A typical take-home project demands anywhere from four to ten hoursof a candidate's free time.
Your best candidates—the ones already employed and juggling multiple offers—don't have that kind of time. They will almost always say no.
I’ve had countless top-tier developers tell me they instantly withdraw their application the moment they see a big take-home project. It sends a clear message: "We don't respect your time."
And it’s not just a bad experience for candidates. Reviewing these assignments is an absolute nightmare for your team. Your engineers are forced to spend hours digging through inconsistent submissions, trying to apply some kind of objective rubric. The process is a manual, unscalable time-suck that’s riddled with bias.
7. Real Job Simulations (The absolute best method)
Let’s be honest. The best way to know if someone can do the job is to watch them do a small, realistic piece of it. It’s that simple.
This is the whole idea behind real job simulations. Forget abstract algorithm puzzles. We’re talking about short, focused assessments—30 to 60 minutes, max—that actually mirror the day-to-day work a developer would do on your team.
This isn’t just another test. It’s a complete shift in how you evaluate technical talent. Instead of asking theoretical questions, you give candidates a taste of the real problems they’ll be solving. This gives you a clean, objective signal that cuts through embellished resumes and slick interview talk.
Here’s what a great simulation looks like:
Debugging an Existing Codebase: Drop the candidate into a small, self-contained service with a known bug. Their task? Diagnose and fix the issue.
Implementing a Small Feature: Give them a simplified version of your app and ask them to add a new, well-defined feature.
Conducting a Pull Request Review: Hand them a sample PR with a mix of good code and subtle flaws. Ask them to review it and suggest improvements.
This practical approach is often called proof-of-work-based hiring. It’s about replacing guesswork with tangible evidence. You can dive deeper into how it provides a clear signal on a candidate's abilities in our detailed guide on the topic.
Other Minor Tips (Beyond Technical Skills)
Technical skill is just the price of admission. A great developer is so much more than a great coder. Once you’ve used simulations to confirm they have the technical chops, you need to dig into the attributes that separate a good hire from a great one. Ignoring these is a classic mistake.
Check for Communication and Collaboration
Can the candidate explain a complex technical idea in simple terms? Can they walk through their thought process without getting defensive? These skills are the bedrock of effective teamwork and a healthy engineering culture. This is a huge part of what a true skills-based hiring model is all about.
Assess Culture Contribution, Not "Fit"
Forget "culture fit." It's a broken concept that leads to hiring people who look and think like you. Instead, screen for culture contribution. Ask: what unique perspective or work style does this candidate bring that our team is currently missing?
Verify Salary Expectations
Don't wait until the final offer stage to discuss salary. Have a transparent conversation about budget and expectations early in the process. This respects everyone's time and avoids disappointment on both sides later on. Misalignment here is one of the most common reasons a great candidate falls through.
Stop wasting interviews on low-signal questions.
With Utkrusht, evaluate true ability through realistic tasks that map directly to on-the-job work. Get started now and level up your technical hiring.
Founder, Utkrusht AI
Ex. Euler Motors, Oracle, Microsoft. 12+ years as Engineering Leader, 500+ interviews taken across US, Europe, and India
Want to hire
the best talent
with proof
of skill?
Shortlist candidates with
strong proof of skill
in just 48 hours
