Quant interview preparation

Prop market making and quantitative research, weighted the way the interviews actually are: probability and expected value, statistics and machine learning, market making logic, programming and options. Every question is either traced to a named firm from a public candidate report, or tagged at desk level when we could not trace it, and every probability answer shows the reasoning path rather than just the number.

Jump to the question bank
Question bank

100 questions, mapped to the firms that asked them

Questions
100
Traced to a firm
53
Firms
15
Updated
September 2026
Asked at
All firmsOld Mission Capital12Tower Research Capital10Jump Trading7Akuna Capital5Citadel4D.E. Shaw3Jane Street3AQR Capital Management2DRW2Millennium Management2Schonfeld2Squarepoint Capital2Susquehanna International Group2Belvedere Trading1Optiver1
Topic
All topicsProbability10Coins, cards and games6Expected value8Statistics11Market making15Estimation and mental maths4Stochastic processes4Regression5Machine learning6Time series6Programming10Options and derivatives8Fit and motivation7
Level
AnyCoreIntermediateHard
Type
AnyBrainteaserTechnicalCaseMarket viewFit
Showing 1–2 of 2 · filtered from 100Clear filters
  1. 094Why trading?Fit and motivationCorephone / first roundSusquehanna International GroupProp Trading · Dublin · 2025

    Say this

    Because it is decision-making under uncertainty with a fast, honest scoreboard. I want a job where I have to commit to a number with incomplete information, find out quickly whether I was right, and improve from that. Very few careers give you that feedback loop.

    Then walk it

    1. Lead with the mechanism of the job, not the glamour. The daily activity is estimating probabilities, pricing them, sizing the bet and managing the position. Say that you find that specific activity interesting and give evidence.
    2. Evidence beats assertion. Poker, prediction markets, a trading competition, a sports betting model, chess, a project where you had to make a call on thin data. Anything where you can describe a decision you made under uncertainty and what you learned when it went wrong.
    3. Then name what you like about the accountability: your P&L is your result, it is not filtered through a committee, and you cannot argue with it. That appeals to some people and repels others, and saying it plainly shows you understand what you are choosing.
    4. Say why trading and not research, or the reverse, because they will ask. Trading suits fast feedback and comfort with acting on incomplete analysis. Research suits patience and deeper statistical work. Pick the one that is true for you.
    5. And be honest about the parts you have thought about and accepted: you will be wrong often, most days are not dramatic, and the learning curve is steep and public. A candidate who mentions the unglamorous reality is more credible than one who only describes the upside.

    Where candidates lose it

    Saying you love markets and are passionate about finance. It says nothing and every candidate says it. The other trap is talking about money, which reads as short-term. Ground it in a concrete decision-under-uncertainty story of your own, and make it specific enough that nobody else could give your answer.

    Expect next

    • Why not research, or engineering?
    • Tell me about a decision you made with incomplete information.
    • What do you think you would find hardest about the job?

    Reported by candidates at Susquehanna International Group (Prop Trading, Dublin, 2025). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

  2. 096Tell me about a time you had to work in a group towards a common goal.Fit and motivationCorephone / first roundDRWTrading · London · 2026

    Say this

    One story, told in ninety seconds, with a real disagreement in it. Situation, what you specifically did, what the friction was, how it resolved and what the outcome was. The disagreement is the part that makes it informative.

    Then walk it

    1. Pick the example where the group was under real constraint: a deadline, a broken plan, a member who was not delivering, or a genuine technical disagreement about the right approach.
    2. Be precise about your own contribution. Say I rather than we when describing what you did, because a we-only answer makes it impossible to tell what you actually contributed.
    3. The friction is the content. What did you disagree about, how did you argue it, and were you the one who changed their mind? Saying I was wrong and updated when someone showed me their numbers is a strong answer on a trading floor, where being persuadable by evidence is a job requirement.
    4. End with the outcome and a number if there is one. Shipped on time, placed second of forty, cut the runtime in half. And then one sentence on what you would do differently, which is what separates reflection from a rehearsed story.
    5. Connect it to trading in one line at the end, not as a speech: a trading desk is a small team sharing risk, so how you handle disagreement about a price matters more than your individual answer. Keep it short, they will draw the inference themselves.

    Where candidates lose it

    A frictionless story where everyone got along and the project succeeded. It carries no information and interviewers discount it entirely. Also avoid the story where you rescued incompetent teammates, which reads as arrogance. Include a moment where you were wrong or had to be persuaded.

    Expect next

    • What would you do differently?
    • Tell me about a time you disagreed with someone more senior.
    • What do you do when a teammate is not pulling their weight?

    Reported by candidates at DRW (Trading, London, 2026). Source: Wall Street Oasis.

Firm tags come from public, anonymous candidate reports on Wall Street Oasis: strong signal, not sworn testimony. Firms are named as the places a question was reported, not as partners of Fin Maverick. Answers are written for this page to show how to think out loud; they are not scripts to recite.