There are many subtle differences between Google and Meta product cases, aside from names Product Design and Product Sense. While you can argue many more, I have identified 7 crucial areas where Google and Meta are different when it comes to design/sense interviews.

1. Structure

2. Insights

3. Mission/Goal

4. Users

5. Solutions

6. Prioritization

7. Metrics

Now, I will dive into what makes the two companies’ approaches different.

1. Structure - Both companies want structure. But one wants a little more and is more forgiving when some candidates are a touch too rigid in their adherence to frameworks.

   • Google - They want structure but also seek their candidates to feel conversational. The more junior the role, the more they forgive over-reliance on frameworks.

   • Meta - The interviewers at Meta want a stronger sense of structure. There are some make or break points (addressed below) where structure bordering on strong frameworks is rewarded, at all levels.

2. Insights - Understanding the why or insights or aha moments of a prompt is important at both companies, but they emphasize slightly different things.

   • Google - These interviewers are looking for keen observations about users and tech trends. Strategic insights on the industry and opportunities are rewarded. Some call it aha moments, others insights.

   • Meta - You are expected to explain why the problem at hand is an important one to solve for. You don’t have a lot of time so keep it concise and insightful. Perhaps most importantly, you need to clearly acknowledge (when relevant and 90% of the time it is) that marketplace dynamics are at play. Miss the Marketplace observation and you will fail.

3. Mission/Goal - As a general rule of thumb, for product design/sense questions, you should come up with a mission or goal. If the prompt is company specific, you should definitely acknowledge the known or assumed goal.

   • Google - For most prompts, it is generally a good idea to set a mission/goal. But most (not all) Google interviewers will be good with one or both. Sometimes, they will surprise you with a pure design question for which a mission/goal might feel forced. Most interviewers don’t need you to distinguish between mission and goal, but bonus points if you do.

   • Meta - The interviewers at Meta know the difference between a mission, goal, and metric. Meta is about as mission-driven as they come. If you are working on a prompt that presumes the solution is for Meta, you need to mention both mission and goal. For a start-up prompt, sometimes the interviewer will be okay with just a goal. But strive to think about missions and goals, but don’t confuse the two.

4. Users - Segmentation of Users is the heart of a product case. Both companies expect you to come up with about 3 user groupings that are psychographic* not demographic.

   • Google - You should be coming up with generally MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) user groupings. And you want to avoid demographics, but if you violate the MECE rule, you are not out of the running. Just keep an eye on it.

   • Meta - Given the data-driven culture, it is no surprise, Meta interviewers can be sticklers for psychographics and MECE requirements. They also frown upon oft-heard groupings, they want to see variation in thought that pleasantly surprises them.

5. Solutions - The big difference here boils down to MVP vs Moonshots.

   • Google - Google is looking for creativity and what it calls 10x or Moonshot ideas. If you don’t have at least one idea that is out of the box and shows 10x thinking, you are likely to fail.

   • Meta - Meanwhile, Meta PMs are focused on MVPs and realistic goal settings for engineering teams. Going too big can backfire on you and lead to a no hire recommendation.

6. Prioritization - Again, both companies want you to prioritize, this is one of the most important parts of a PMs job. BUT how you share your prioritization differs greatly. For both, you want to pick three users and three solutions/features to show dimensionality of thought. BUT

   • Google - Google wants a nice, natural explanation of why you selected one item, not a robotic list. You need to be clear about the why and/or why not. This is a good place to emphasize the trade-offs, BUT don’t wait until the ending prioritization to mention trade-offs. If you wait too long and get cut off the interviewer’s feedback will be negative around trade-offs.

   • Meta - Clear prioritization is important to impress Meta interviews. What would be considered too frameworky for Google is table stakes for Meta. Be structured but the more senior you are, the more you need to be careful about sounding too robotic.

7. Metrics - Adding metrics to the end of a design case used to be standard, faded, and then came back again.

   • Google - The new Craft & Execution category of questions has seen a rise in the need for metrics during a design case. You will not always need it, but it should come back into your practice for design & insights questions.

   • Meta - They used to require metrics at the end of product sense interviews but most interviewers have pivoted away, finding that the full execution interview covered it. HOWEVER, there are some older interviewers out there that require metrics at the end of product design cases.

There are other differences, but these are the big ones.

For Reference, Mission Statements:

• Google: to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

• Meta: to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.

Footnotes:

*psychographics - the study and classification of people according to their attitudes, aspirations, and other psychological criteria, especially in market research.