Interview process involved: 1. Application 2. Technical assessment (~3 hours) 3. A webinar introducing us to the company (30 mins) 4. Final interview which took half a day, involving presentations from the Epic team (mostly repeated info from the 30min webinar), group cases (with other applicants), a personal presentation to a panel of 3-4 employees, then an interview with HR. TBH the entire interview process was not too difficult, but I felt that the performance on the group case will depend heavily on who you are grouped with and whether they can collectively work together, The interview with HR involved a lot of situational and behavioural questions, similar to some that were posted by other interviewees on this platform. On the surface level, the company and role seems great - large company, global usage of the system, decent stability, impactful and meaningful work, friendly people. However, when digging deeper, I realised that the interviewers tend to place emphasis on the "benefits" of working at Epic - they place a lot of emphasis on having a nice office, offering a partially funded sabbatical after 5 years of working at Epic, and providing a comprehensive 3 month training in America. To a fresh graduate, this may seem like a dream role. However, I noticed that there was no mention of work life balance. While their other benefits like training and their people definitely sound great, I wasn't convinced that they have sufficient measures to protect employees from burnout, especially based on the employee reviews on Glassdoor. When I asked HR about how they ensure balance for the employees, they skirted around the question, sharing instead that the Epic team is dedicated to ensuring minimal disruptions for their clients and are happy to band together to solve issues when they arise. Overall, I felt that Epic is a decent/neutral workplace if you look at the training program and impact of the work, but I felt that there were some red flags to take note of, like the avoidance of talking about WLB. The compensation offered at the time was also below industry average, but I think HR is probably still figuring this out.