How our firm guides, problem tags, and prep paths are built, and how to read them.
Claims about how trading firms interview are easy to make and hard to check. You should be skeptical of them, including ours. This page explains exactly where our firm content comes from, how we label its reliability, and what we refuse to do. The short version: every claim is sourced, every source type is shown, and anything we cannot back up is left out.
Firm guides are built only from publicly available material: official company careers and interview-process pages, role descriptions and job postings, university job boards, public candidate-report aggregators, and established third-party interview guides.
Every interview round in a firm guide carries a source badge:
Each guide also shows an overall source-confidence level and a last-reviewed date, plus a standing caveat that processes vary by role, office, and year. When our only basis for a claim is inference (for example, a prep recommendation derived from a firm's stated focus areas rather than a documented round), the prep path labels it as such.
Firm prep paths follow one rule: nothing on a path may be made up. Every step is generated from a sourced claim about that firm, and each step shows its provenance (the confidence level and the sources behind it). If we lack evidence for a role at a firm, we say so and do not offer a path for it, rather than padding one out. Progress on a path comes only from real events: problems you actually solved, drills and games you actually completed, mocks you actually finished. There are no fabricated progress bars.
When a problem is tagged with a firm (the "Asked at" label), it means that problem has been reported as a real question used in that firm's interviews. This is deliberate, and it is one of the main reasons to use QuantReady: a large share of our problems are the actual questions firms have asked, not generic stand-ins. Those tags come from two public, checkable kinds of source: candidate accounts that describe interviews in public, and signed-in users who tell us, on the problem page, that they were asked a specific problem at a specific firm. User reports are shown as counts and reviewed before they change a tag. We build only from this public record and from what candidates volunteer to us; we never use anything confidential, NDA-bound, or leaked to us privately. We are progressively attaching an explicit source to every tag, and any tag we cannot stand behind gets removed.
Firm-specific mock sessions select problems weighted by the topic emphasis recorded in that firm's guide. They simulate topic mix and time pressure; they are not replicas of any firm's actual process.
Guides carry a last-reviewed date and are re-checked periodically against current public information. Interview processes change; if you interviewed recently and something here is out of date or wrong, we want to know. Tell us through the contact form or the firm-report button on any problem page, and we will review it against the sourcing standard above.
Browse the firm guides to see these labels in context.