Not OP. It's anecdata, but our worst candidates all had AWS certified developer as a top bullet-point on their resumes.

Maybe the guidance then should be around how much emphasis is placed on the cert in the resume, rather than the mere presence of it.

I think we have all seen resumes where there is an alphabet soup of certifications and a lack of real projects or positions. But if they just have a cert casually listed near the bottom, it's usually a compliment to the work they were already doing in that area (and maybe their employer paid them to go and get it)

They're very important in any company that has a partnership, like with AWS or Microsoft Azure. They have to maintain a certain number of people with certs to keep their partnership, so they push for their employees to get it. Seems very common in consulting, for example. Hiring someone that already has those certs makes things easier.

Also for the companies that need security clearances, I've seen plenty of job postings that have security clearances are required (or the job is contingent on your ability to get one). I'd be surprised if that wasn't still valued.

"Bad" meaning all the worst candidates have these certificates while very very few of the best candidates had certs (presumably they were busy building things with the knowledge than passing tests). "Good" in that certain roles require certificates to make nondev clients feel better. Government contracts, consulting, etc. Places where appearance/marketing is more important than skill.

First chapter in cracking the coding interview also agrees. Certifications may be seen as compensating for lack of experience.

Anecdotally, engineers that I have interviewed that had a litany of certifications were very weak candidates.

As were bootcampers, which is similar I guess.