There’s rarely one reason. More often, it’s a slow buildup of friction until a developer quietly walks away.
We asked thousands of developers in our latest Developers Skills Survey what makes them quit an assessment, and there’s no single standout. The answers were remarkably even:
This kind of even spread doesn’t point to one obvious fix, but it does invite a closer look at what’s going wrong, and what it signals about the state of technical assessments today.
The top reasons developers drop out of assessments
Irrelevant questions
Among developers who are already in the workforce (not students), irrelevant questions jump to the top of the list. It’s no landslide, but it’s consistent across roles, ages, and regions.
Why? Because developers know when they’re being asked to do something that has nothing to do with the actual job. And they’ve learned that irrelevant assessments can lead to irrelevant jobs.
As one developer put it:
“Solving LeetCode algorithmic challenges doesn’t make any sense—99% of the time those tasks don’t relate to software developer roles.”
This becomes even more pronounced with age. Among developers 45 and up, nearly half (47%) cited irrelevant questions as a reason to bail.
Just because a developer sticks it out doesn’t mean they aren’t frustrated. 77% of the developers we surveyed say most assessments don’t align with the skills required for the role they’re assessing.
Time commitment: death by a thousand minutes
The second strongest theme? Time.
An hour-long assessment isn’t a huge deal on paper, but in practice, it means carving out time, energy, and headspace, often with little context or payoff. For many developers, that hour can also include hours or days of preparation time. When leetcode is involved, 62% of developers feel like they need to overprepare for an assessment, since it’s not something they use regularly.
“I’d consider skipping an assessment if it takes way more time than initially communicated—or if it feels like an unrealistic challenge for the role.”
When time commitment is paired with questions that don’t reflect the work, it starts to feel like a waste of effort.
User experience: don’t make them fight the platform
Poor UX isn’t just annoying, it’s a signal. While you’re evaluating developers, they’re evaluating you. And if the assessment environment feels clunky, confusing, or bolted together, they’ll assume the same about your team’s codebase, process, or culture.
Small friction points—lack of stack support, laggy IDEs, unclear error messages—add up fast. UX is more than convenience. It’s competence.
A bad interface doesn’t just break the experience. It breaks trust.
Technical issues: a regional pain point
In India, technical issues are a top concern; more so than in any other geographic region we surveyed.
That includes things like slow-loading platforms, network sensitivity, or coding environments that fail mid-assessment. For early-career developers, these issues can be dealbreakers. Among 18–24-year-olds, 37% cited technical problems as their top reason for bailing.
Sometimes, even logging into the ATS can be half the battle.
Scheduling: an invisible blocker
Inflexible scheduling isn’t a platform problem; it’s often a process one.
It affects working professionals juggling day jobs. Candidates across time zones. Parents balancing interviews between school pickups. Developers may want to take the assessment, but not at the one rigid time you offer it.
Asynchronous assessments help. So do clear windows, rescheduling options, and empathy in your comms. And remember, being flexible isn’t just about being kind: it also expands your talent pool.
What developers are really saying
We also asked developers to tell us—in their own words—why they’ve walked away from assessments. Their responses go deeper than checkboxes:
“The assessment doesn’t match my tech stack.”
“Problems require a skill level far beyond the salary offered.”
“Sometimes I just feel like I’m not good enough.”
“Unnecessary difficulty—waste of time.”
This isn’t just about test design. It’s about clarity, confidence, and trust. It’s about how assessments make developers feel, and how the experience shapes their view of your company.
A shifting baseline
For years, LeetCode-style assessments were the industry’s best scalable option. They weren’t perfect, but they gave hiring teams a way to evaluate consistently and objectively.
Even before AI, ground was shifting. As tech stacks evolved and developer tooling matured, companies began leaning into assessments that looked more like the actual job: building projects, debugging real systems, and architecting solutions.
AI didn’t start the shift, but it did crank up the urgency.
Today, many of the questions that once separated strong candidates from the rest can be solved by any decent model. A signal that was already a little noisy has become harder to trust.
That’s why more teams are moving toward assessments that:
- Mirror real work and real tasks
- Use IDEs and tools developers already know
- Allow or even encourage AI use when it reflects the job
- Prioritize process and decision-making over rote output
These assessments feel more grounded, for developers and hiring teams. They produce stronger signals, create smoother candidate experiences, and are far less vulnerable to being gamed.
The shift was already happening. Now it just matters more.
What companies can do
Assessments still matter. In an age of AI-generated everything, they may matter more than they ever have. And the best ones now do three things:
- Feel like the job
- Respect the candidate’s time
- Capture a clear, fair, strong signal
Here’s how to move in that direction:
- Be clear about time. Be upfront, and if it’s going to take more than an hour, explain why.
- Make it relevant. Focus on skills they’ll actually use on the job.
- Fix the flow. If the UX is clunky, the message is loud and clear.
- Offer flexibility. Async by default. Accommodations when needed.
- Modernize your signal. Consider letting candidates work with AI if that’s part of the role. See how they solve—not just what they submit.
The best assessments feel like an invitation
An assessment is a signal. Not just of skills, but of values, expectations, and how your team works.
If it feels arbitrary or out of touch, developers will walk. If it feels real, fair, and aligned with the role, they’ll lean in.