Typeform · Data Scientist
Updated · 2026-09-24

Typeform Data Scientist
Interview Questions & Guide 2026

THE 60-SECOND BRIEF

This guide covers what a Data Scientist at Typeform is expected to do and how to prepare for the interview.

The boundary with engineering varies enough to be worth asking about directly. Some seats end at the analysis and the writeup; others carry feature pipelines, scheduling and alerting, which decides whether production data plumbing belongs in your prep at all.

Typeform candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Separate contracted seats from actively used seatsPower experiments for heavy-tailed account revenueStrip CI, retry and synthetic traffic first

36 min read

Browse Data Scientist questions

See the practice prompts

17Practice promptsAcross five skill areas
3With worked solutionsIncluded in the practice prompts

This guide covers what a Data Scientist at Typeform is expected to do and how to prepare for the interview.

The Typeform interview process

01

Initial Screening

reported

Whoever runs this call is usually not a practitioner. They take notes, and a hiring manager skims those notes later, so the real question is whether your work survives being written down by someone outside the field. Test every project sentence against that: could a non-specialist repeat it correctly without knowing what a propensity score is? Carry a plain-language version of each project and one reason you want this particular role that you could not copy onto another application. Vagueness at this stage reads as inexperience, even when the underlying work was genuinely deep.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether a non-specialist can restate your projects accurately, since their paraphrase is what reaches the hiring manager
  • Whether your reason for wanting the role points at the work itself rather than the company's reputation
  • Whether your language signals the level being screened for: what you decided yourself versus what you were handed

How to prepare

  • Write a two-sentence, jargon-free version of each major project: the question nobody could answer, and the decision your work changed. Read it to someone outside data and have them repeat it back
  • Point your 'why this role' answer at something concrete in the job description or the product surface you would be working on, and keep it to two sentences
  • Have two questions ready about measurement: which metric the team is held to, and who acts on an analysis once it lands
PracHub interview research ↗
02

Technical Assessment

reported

A handful of shapes account for most of what gets asked in this format: a ranking or deduplication inside groups, a running or rolling total, a period-over-period comparison, and a cohort tracked forward over time. Recognising the shape quickly is most of the speed here; deriving it from scratch while a clock runs is where the time goes. Know that a window function keeps every row while a GROUP BY collapses them, and know which one the question needs. If the exercise is in Python instead of SQL, the same shapes arrive as groupby with transform, shift and merge, and the same grain mistakes are available.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether you reach the right construct without a detour, such as ROW_NUMBER over a partition to deduplicate instead of a self-join against a MAX subquery
  • Whether you know what your window frame actually is, since adding ORDER BY inside OVER changes the default frame and silently changes a running total
  • Whether the thing runs. A near-miss that throws an error scores below a plainer query that returns the right rows.

How to prepare

  • Write each of the four shapes once from memory against a small schema and keep the working version somewhere you will reread it: dedupe with ROW_NUMBER, a running total, a month-over-month change with LAG, and a retention table
  • Compute one running total twice on data with tied timestamps, once on the default frame and once with ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, and look at where the two disagree
  • If Python is on the table, rebuild the dedupe and the running total with groupby and cumsum, then assert the two implementations return identical rows
PracHub interview research ↗
03

Stakeholder Presentation

reported

An added round often puts you in front of someone outside the core hiring team: a partner engineer, a product owner, a domain expert, sometimes a more senior manager. The question they are really asking is not whether you can do the work but whether they would trust a number that came from you. That changes what a good answer looks like. Lead with what the decision cost and what it changed, keep the method available but not central, and be plain about the limits of your evidence. Overstating a result is the fastest way to lose this round.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether you can explain a technical choice to someone who will never read your code, without either flattening it into nothing or hiding inside jargon
  • Honesty about evidence strength: what the analysis establishes, what it only suggests, and what it cannot say at all
  • How you take disagreement, specifically whether you update on a good objection, hold your position with reasons, or fold on contact

How to prepare

  • Write the two-sentence version of your most technical project for a non-specialist, then check that neither sentence needs a method name to make sense.
  • For one result you are proud of, write the strongest objection someone could raise and a response that concedes the part of it that is correct.
  • Prepare one decision that turned out to be wrong: how you found out, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards. A senior cross-functional interviewer asks for this more often than a technical one does.
PracHub interview research ↗

Where candidates lose points

PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.

01

Computing monthly churn against the entire customer base when contracts are annual

An annual contract has no opportunity to churn except at its renewal date, so an account that is eleven months from renewal is in the denominator while being incapable of appearing in the numerator. The resulting rate is smaller than the real one by roughly the ratio of the base to the renewal-eligible base, and it oscillates with the seasonality of when deals were originally signed rather than with anything about the customers. The corresponding trap on the other side is counting a churn on the date the record was updated rather than on term_end_date, which shifts losses into whichever month the operations team did its paperwork.

02

Comparing accounts that received a sales or customer-success touch against those that did not

Assignment of coverage is deliberate and pulls in both directions at once: the largest accounts get a named owner because they are valuable, and the accounts showing distress get one because they are at risk. The comparison therefore mixes a strong positive selection with a strong negative one, and the naive estimate can come out with either sign depending on which assignment rule dominated during the period examined. Nothing about matching on observed size fixes this, because the risk signal that triggered coverage is usually the same signal that predicts the outcome. It needs either an actual randomised or staggered rollout of coverage, or a design built on a capacity constraint or territory boundary that assigns coverage for reasons unrelated to account health.

03

Analysing at a different unit than the one randomised

Say out loud what was randomised (user, device, account, cluster) and make the analysis unit match, or account for the clustering with cluster-robust standard errors, the delta method, or aggregation up to the randomised unit. Randomising users and then running a test over sessions understates variance and inflates the false-positive rate.

04

Writing SQL without stating NULL and tie-breaking behaviour

Before calling a query finished, say what it does with NULLs, ties and empty groups. NOT IN against a subquery containing a single NULL returns no rows at all, and RANK, DENSE_RANK and ROW_NUMBER differ precisely on ties, so name which one the question requires.

Questions & practice

Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.

14 technical prompts3 include a worked solution

Audit daily usage rows for grain and arithmetic violations

easyWorked solution
data-qualitypandasgrain

You are handed fct_usage_daily as a pandas DataFrame with account_id, workspace_id, sku_code, usage_date, billable_quantity, included_quantity_applied, overage_quantity, list_amount_cents, discount_amount_cents, net_amount_cents, cogs_cents, is_restated, first_written_at and restated_at. The declared grain is one row per (account_id, workspace_id, sku_code, usage_date). Write audit(df) returning a DataFrame with one row per failing check: check name, failing row count, and one example key. Cover at minimum grain duplication, negative quantities or amounts, the identity net = list - discount, billable = included + overage, and rows where is_restated is true but restated_at is null.

Approach
  1. Check the grain before anything else with df.duplicated(subset=key, keep=False), and count rows rather than groups so a key appearing twice contributes 2 — if the grain is broken every arithmetic count below it is uninterpretable.
  2. Express each invariant as a boolean Series over the whole frame. The cent columns are integers and compare exactly, so use !=; the numeric(18,6) quantity columns need np.isclose with atol=1e-6 because included + overage is a decimal sum.
  3. Handle null as its own failure mode. Comparisons against NaN return False, so a check written as rows_that_pass = (a == b - c) silently files every null-amount row wherever the negation happens to land; build each check as violations = ~condition | column.isna().
  4. Collect the checks as a list of (name, mask) pairs and assemble the output in one pass, so adding a check is one line and every check reports in the same shape.
  5. Order the output with structural failures (grain, null keys) above arithmetic failures, and report zero-count checks too — a check that silently disappears when it passes is indistinguishable from a check that was never run.
Worked solution 20 min
  1. key = ['account_id','workspace_id','sku_code','usage_date']; dup = df.duplicated(key, keep=False); record dup.sum() and df.loc[dup, key].iloc[0].to_dict() as the example.
  2. neg = (df[['billable_quantity','included_quantity_applied','overage_quantity','list_amount_cents','net_amount_cents','cogs_cents']] < 0).any(axis=1); net_bad = df.net_amount_cents.isna() | (df.net_amount_cents != df.list_amount_cents - df.discount_amount_cents).
  3. qty_bad = ~np.isclose(df.billable_quantity, df.included_quantity_applied + df.overage_quantity, atol=1e-6) | df.billable_quantity.isna(); restated_bad = df.is_restated & df.restated_at.isna().
  4. Assemble pd.DataFrame([{'check': n, 'failing_rows': int(m.sum()), 'example': first_key(m)} for n, m in checks]) with the grain and null checks listed first.
EXPECTED RESULTOne row per check with failing_rows as an integer count of rows rather than groups, and a JSON-serialisable example key for any check with a non-zero count; a single doubled key contributes 2 to the grain check.
Follow-up
  • Which of these should block a dashboard refresh and which should only warn?
  • Rows with is_restated = true legitimately change value after first write. How do you make yesterday's audit result reproducible?
  • How would you extend this to catch a partition that is missing entirely rather than wrong?

Join daily usage to the contract version live that day

medium
as-of-joinpandasnumpycontracts

fct_usage_daily has account_id, usage_date and net_amount_cents. fct_subscription_period has account_id, subscription_period_id, plan_tier, term_start_date, term_end_date, arr_cents and is_current, with one row per contract term version and every amendment inserting a new row. Attach to each usage row the subscription_period_id whose term brackets usage_date (term_start_date <= usage_date <= term_end_date). pd.merge_asof and an interval-condition merge are unavailable; use sorting and numpy.searchsorted. Then report monthly net revenue by plan_tier. Terms for one account do not overlap, and usage may fall outside every term.

Approach
  1. Say out loud why the cheap version is wrong: joining on is_current stamps today's plan tier onto last year's usage, so every account that upgraded has its history reclassified and revenue-by-tier becomes a function of when the query ran.
  2. Sort each account's terms by term_start_date and use np.searchsorted(term_start, usage_date, side='right') - 1 to get the last term that started on or before the usage date. Do it per account group, or globally after encoding (account_id, date) into one monotone key.
  3. searchsorted only enforces the left edge. Validate the right edge afterwards — usage_date <= the candidate's term_end_date — and set the match to NA where it fails. That NA is usage in a gap between contracts and must stay visible instead of being folded into the expired term.
  4. Assert non-overlap before trusting the lookup, and write the assertion so it is capable of passing. prev_end = terms.groupby('account_id').term_end_date.shift() is NaT on each account's first row, and NaT < Timestamp evaluates to False rather than NA, so a comparison followed by .fillna(True) has nothing left to fill and the assertion fires on every account's first term whatever the data looks like. Guard the null yourself: assert (prev_end.isna() | (prev_end < terms.term_start_date)).all(). The failure mode of getting this wrong is not a false alarm you notice once — it is an assertion someone deletes because it never passes, after which overlapping terms make searchsorted return one of them with no trace in the output.
  5. Aggregate after the join, grouping by (usage_date month, plan_tier) with dropna=False so the unmatched bucket appears as its own row and the total still ties to the ungrouped sum of net_amount_cents.
Follow-up
  • An amendment takes effect on the 17th of a month. How do you report that month's revenue by tier?
  • What changes if terms can overlap because of a co-term amendment?
  • How would you verify this against a SQL implementation using a BETWEEN condition?

Implement seven-day activation rate from its written definition

easy
metricspandasactivation

Given dim_account (account_id, created_at, is_internal, is_current) and fct_api_request (account_id, request_at, http_status, api_key_id, traffic_class), implement activation_rate(accounts, requests, week_start). Definition: the numerator is accounts whose first request with http_status < 400, api_key_id not null and traffic_class != 'synthetic_monitor' occurs no later than 168 hours after created_at; the denominator is non-internal accounts created during the ISO week starting week_start. All timestamps are tz-aware UTC. Return the rate and both counts, and refuse to report a week until every account in it has had its full 168 hours.

Approach
  1. Reduce dim_account to one row per account_id before joining anything. It is a type 2 dimension, so several versions of the same account exist; joining the versioned table to requests multiplies the denominator by the number of plan changes an account happened to make.
  2. Build the denominator first and freeze it: is_internal == False and week_start <= created_at < week_start + 7 days. Everything after this is a filter on the numerator only, because an account that never sent a request must still sit in the bottom of the fraction.
  3. Filter requests to qualifying rows and only then take groupby('account_id').request_at.min(). The first qualifying request is not the same object as the global first request filtered afterwards, and the two answers differ for every account whose first call was a 4xx.
  4. Left-join the first qualifying timestamp onto the cohort and test (first_ok - created_at) <= Timedelta(hours=168). NaT propagates to False in that comparison, which is the behaviour you want, but assert it rather than assume it.
  5. Guard reportability explicitly: if week_start + 7 days + 168 hours exceeds the maximum request_at in the data, the week is censored and will read as a drop, so return None or raise rather than emit a number.
Follow-up
  • Median time-to-first-call is more informative. What breaks if you take the median over activated accounts only, and what estimator fixes it?
  • How would you decide whether 168 hours is the right window rather than 72 or 336?
  • An account signs up, does nothing for 20 days, then integrates heavily. Where does it land in this metric, and is that what you want?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly 90 minutes a night on weekdays with one longer weekend block. The plan deliberately cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that finishing one thing a night beats half-starting four.

Small steps. Visible outcomes.0 / 7 completed
ONE WEEK · YOUR PACE

Prepare, practise & reflect

One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.

0 / 7 done
01Fix the scope and set a baseline
  • Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list for everything else and keep it visible all week.
  • Take one 20-minute SQL prompt and one 10-minute metric question cold, and write the single sentence that says what blocked each attempt, since that sentence is what decides which two topics get the most evenings.
  • Set the week's one rule: one problem finished to completion every night, including the night you only have 40 minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with an explicit not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
02One query pattern, written three times
  • Choose the single pattern most likely to appear (a cohort retention grid, or a funnel counted by user) and write it three times from a blank file rather than editing the previous attempt.
  • On the third attempt, write the grain of every CTE as a comment before writing its body.
  • Stop at 90 minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix with another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent versions of the same query plus a note on what changed between them.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
03Only the statistics you will be asked to defend
  • Write, in under 200 words, how you would decide whether a difference between two groups is real: the test, its assumptions, and what you would switch to when an assumption fails.
  • Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a difference in proportions by hand on realistic numbers, then write in one sentence what changes if the two samples are paired rather than independent.
  • Write your answer to "what does a p-value mean", check it against a definition, and delete the version that describes it as the probability the hypothesis is true.

Deliverable: A 200-word written answer and one hand-computed interval you can reproduce under pressure.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
04One case, and the assumptions holding it up
  • Answer one product case aloud in 20 minutes with a recording running, then listen back with a pen and mark every claim you asserted without saying what it rested on: an assumed user behaviour, an assumed data source, an assumed baseline rate, an assumed grain.
  • Pick the three assumptions the recommendation actually depends on, write how you would check each one against data, and say which one being wrong would flip the recommendation rather than merely weaken it.
  • Write the four-step structure you used onto a card small enough to hold in working memory when you are nervous.

Deliverable: One recording, three load-bearing assumptions each with a written check, and a four-step structure card.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
05Your own work, timed
  • Write a 90-second version and a four-minute version of your main project, and time both out loud rather than reading them.
  • Prepare answers to the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
  • Put one number in the first sentence and be able to say exactly where that number came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
06The one full rehearsal, in a longer weekend block
  • Run a 60-minute mock covering query work, a case and a behavioural question in a single sitting with no breaks, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
  • Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
  • Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
07Taper
  • Write the 20-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning of the interview: one query you can already write from a blank file, one metric you can define out loud, and nothing you have never seen before.
  • Re-read only your own notes from this week, and open no new material.
  • Write down the logistics: the tool you will be asked to work in, whether lookups are allowed, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the case structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗

Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.

Where your data came from

Data people depend on systems owned by other teams, and much of the job is negotiating for instrumentation, access, or a fix to a broken pipeline. Prepare an example of getting something changed upstream that you did not control. Describe what you asked for, what you traded, and how you worked while you waited.

Describe a situation where you had to work with incomplete or conflict…

medium
behavioural and stakeholder questions

Describe a situation where you had to work with incomplete or conflicting data to make a recommendation.

Approach
  1. Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
  2. Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
  3. Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.
Follow-up
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?
  • What would you do differently if you ran that project again?

Scope an open-ended request to predict account churn

medium
scopingchurn modellingoperating point

A customer success director asks for a list of accounts about to churn. You know only that the team has six people and that contracts are annual. Available data is fct_subscription_period, fct_usage_daily, fct_api_request, fct_support_ticket and dim_account. Before writing any code, produce the questions you need answered, a proposed definition of about to churn, and the shape of the artefact you would hand back, including the operating point that turns a score into a decision.

Approach
  1. The interviewer is probing whether you convert a vague request into a decision with a capacity constraint attached. A candidate who starts talking about model families has already failed the exercise.
  2. Pin the event and the horizon first. Churn is only possible at term_end_date, so the population is accounts renewing in the next 60 to 90 days, not the whole base. Ask explicitly whether contraction and downgrade count as churn or only full non-renewal, because the three have different base rates and different interventions.
  3. Pin the action and the capacity. Six people times a realistic number of meaningful interventions per week gives k, and k is what the list is ranked to. Evaluate on precision at k rather than a global AUC over accounts that will never be contacted.
  4. Audit leakage before choosing features. Every feature needs a timestamp proving it existed before the prediction date. A downgrade amendment, a churn reason code, and a ticket opened after the renewal conversation started are all leaks that will make the offline number look excellent and the live list useless.
  5. Ask for the counterfactual now rather than later. Coverage is assigned deliberately, so without a held-out slice agreed at the start the intervention can never be evaluated, and you will be asked for its impact in nine months regardless.
  6. Propose the smallest artefact that closes the loop: a weekly ranked list sized to capacity with two or three inspectable reasons per row, plus a stated policy for accounts below the line.
Follow-up
  • The director insists all accounts are in scope, not only those renewing soon. How do you answer without simply refusing?
  • Historical non-renewals number about 30 a year. At what point do you tell them a model is the wrong tool and a rules list is better?
  • Which candidate features would you drop purely because you cannot date them?

Disagree with a product manager about an adoption claim

medium
conflicttelemetry hygieneadoption metrics

A product manager is about to present that a new SDK release drove a 40 percent rise in requests among adopting accounts, computed from fct_api_request counts grouped by sdk_version. You find the rise is concentrated in traffic_class equal to ci, that rows with is_retry true grew alongside it, and that restricting to interactive non-retry traffic leaves a 3 percent lift. The launch review is in two days. Decide how you raise this, with whom and in what order, and what you propose the claim becomes.

Approach
  1. The interviewer is probing whether you can correct a colleague without ambushing them, and whether your own counter-analysis carries the caveats theirs lacked. Go to the product manager privately before the review. A correction delivered in the room is a status move and loses the argument you are actually trying to win.
  2. Bring a decomposition rather than a verdict: the same accounts and window, requests split by traffic_class with retries held out as their own column, so their 40 percent and your 3 percent reconcile line by line and neither has to be taken on trust.
  3. Reproduce their figure exactly first. If you cannot land on 40 percent with their method, you do not yet know what you are disagreeing with.
  4. Ask whether the continuous-integration lift is itself valuable. An account wiring the SDK into its pipeline has increased integration depth, which is the dominant switching cost in this domain, so the honest claim may be that integration depth rose while interactive usage moved 3 percent. Improving the claim beats deleting it.
  5. Name the mechanism that makes the raw count dangerous: clients retry when the platform degrades, so retry volume climbs exactly when the customer is most at risk. Pull the 5xx rate for the same accounts and window before anyone concludes anything, and note that billable_units is zero on 5xx rows, so request counts and billable quantities diverging is itself the signal.
  6. Close with a standing definition for launch metrics so the next release does not repeat the exercise.
Follow-up
  • The product manager argues that continuous-integration traffic is real usage and declines to split it out. Is that position defensible, and under what metric definition?
  • Suppose the 5xx rate for those same accounts also rose 40 percent. What is the claim now?
  • The review happens and the raw number is presented regardless. What do you do next, and what do you not do?
  • 01

    Describe a situation where you had to work with incomplete or conflicting data to make a recommendation.

  • 02

    A customer success director asks for a list of accounts about to churn. You know only that the team has six people and that contracts are annual. Available data is fct_subscription_period, fct_usage_daily, fct_api_request, fct_support_ticket and dim_account. Before writing any code, produce the questions you need answered, a proposed definition of about to churn, and the shape of the artefact you would hand back, including the operating point that turns a score into a decision.

  • 03

    A product manager is about to present that a new SDK release drove a 40 percent rise in requests among adopting accounts, computed from fct_api_request counts grouped by sdk_version. You find the rise is concentrated in traffic_class equal to ci, that rows with is_retry true grew alongside it, and that restricting to interactive non-retry traffic leaves a 3 percent lift. The launch review is in two days. Decide how you raise this, with whom and in what order, and what you propose the claim becomes.

PracHub interview preparation framework ↗

Frequently asked questions

Is this an official Typeform interview guide?

No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Data Scientist role at Typeform. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Typeform has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.

PracHub interview research ↗
How long does the process usually take?

While timelines can vary, the process generally spans several weeks, involving multiple technical and cultural assessment stages. Candidates report that Typeform aims for transparency and consistent communication throughout.

PracHub interview research ↗
How should I prepare for the presentation rounds?

Focus on clarity and storytelling. Your goal is to demonstrate how you identified a problem, the data you used to investigate it, your methodology, and the impact of your findings.

PracHub interview research ↗
Is this role purely analytical or does it involve machine learning?

This is primarily a Product Data Science role focused on experimentation and behavioral insights. Typeform has separate ML engineers, so your focus will be on driving product strategy through data.

PracHub interview research ↗
Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗

No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.

Browse Data Scientist questions