That doesn't sound right at all for the tech sector.
There's the mandatory "is this a human" interview, there's a technical interview to weed out the dozens of candidates, then there's the interview where those who passed the first round are interviewed to check for hard skills, soft skills, cultural fit, etc.
Which one would you leave out? Even with a technical assignment you need at least 3?
FANGs subject candidates to between 2 to 4 meetings in their on-site interview. Google nowadays has at least 4 interviews. When I interviewed for MongoDB they were very proud of having 12 rounds of interviews, and the interviewer boasted they managed to streamline the process by cutting out two interviews. I could go on and on.
I don't recall a single interview process for a tech role that has less than 4 interview rounds.
Google is a very large company. They have capital on hand and an established, well-worn process for onboarding. It costs them comparatively little to hire.
For a small company, an engineering hire is a big investment. They don't do it as often, so it costs them more in terms of both direct costs and indirect costs - like the time it takes their existing team to go through the process and bring the new hire up to speed.
> Stretched over two months
These companies aren't Google. There is no valid reason why it should take so long to decide on candidates for a position. It is not necessary to have more than two interview sessions. I bail on any company that subjects people to this garbage.