Latin American Developers' English Proficiency: Our Data
In our English interviews, 85% of Latin American engineers met or beat the bar their role required, and 4 in 10 cleared it comfortably.
Brazil ranks 75th out of 123 countries in the EF English Proficiency Index 2025, and Mexico lands in the "very low" band. If that's the only number you've seen, it makes sense to brace for slow standups and Slack threads full of crossed wires.
That's not what shows up in our interviews. Between November 2025 and June 2026, 85% of the LatAm engineers our recruiting team interviewed in English met or beat the level their role required. Latin American developers' English proficiency is higher than the country averages suggest, and the reasons behind that gap matter if you're about to hire.
I lead growth at NeuronHire, and I also work the sourcing side, so I hear both halves of this. On one side, founders ask on a first call whether a LATAM team will keep up in meetings. On the other, senior engineers who open the interview by apologizing for their English and then walk us through a system design without a single misunderstanding.
The ranking measures something real. It just measures a different group of people than the ones you'd hire.
Latin American Developers' English Proficiency: What Our Interviews Show
Most of the engineers we interview in English are ready for the job they're applying to. Out of 100+ English assessments our recruiting team ran between November 2025 and June 2026, 85% met or beat the bar, and about 4 in 10 cleared it with room to spare.
| Rating | Share of candidates | What it looks like in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Above expectations | 40% | Comfortable well past what the role needed: could lead a design review or take a client call |
| Good enough | 45% | Clear, working English for the role's daily routine: standups, PR reviews, Slack, tickets |
| Below expectations | 15% | Not yet able to hold the conversations the role requires |
Put that on a five-person team and it means roughly four engineers who'll get through standups and code reviews without friction, and two of them could sit in front of your customers tomorrow.
How did we measure English proficiency?
Every number above comes from a live English interview run by our internal recruiting team. Candidates reach that interview after passing our sourcing screen, so this is our funnel, not a random sample of every developer in the region (more on that limit later). Each person gets rated against an internal rubric that weighs clarity and communication against what the specific role asks for: seniority, whether it's client-facing, and how the team works day to day.
That last part matters. A mid-level backend engineer on an internal platform team and a staff engineer who'll run architecture reviews with your VP of Product don't get held to the same bar. "Good enough" means good enough for that seat.
What does "good enough" English mean for an engineering role?
It means the person can do the work in English without slowing the team down. Can they explain a tradeoff they made? Can they ask a clarifying question before building the wrong thing? Can they recover when they miss a word, instead of nodding along?
Grammar mistakes don't move the needle much in our rubric. A dropped article or a Portuguese-shaped sentence won't break a sprint. Someone who can't say "I don't understand the requirement" will.
Honestly, this is where a lot of hiring managers set the bar in the wrong place. They listen for accent and polish, which are easy to notice in the first minute, and miss the stuff that actually predicts how someone works on a remote team.
Why Country Rankings Make CTOs Expect Less
The first English number most founders find about Latin America is the EF English Proficiency Index, and it answers a different question than the one you're asking when you hire. It tells you how everyone who took a free online English test in a country scored on average. It doesn't tell you how a senior engineer who reads English documentation eight hours a day will do on your team.
Here's where the four biggest LATAM hiring markets landed in the 2025 edition:
| Country | EF EPI 2025 score | EF proficiency band |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 575 | High |
| Brazil | 482 | Low |
| Colombia | 480 | Low |
| Mexico | 440 | Very low |
Argentina is the regional leader and ranks 26th worldwide. Brazil sits at 75th. A CTO who stops reading there would cross three of the four markets off the list.
EF is upfront about the limits in its own methodology notes: the test-taking group is self-selected, skews toward younger adults and people interested in studying languages, and isn't guaranteed to represent a country as a whole. Anyone can take it, whatever their education or job. So the Brazil average blends a software engineer in Campinas with someone in their first month of an English course.
My guess is the people who'd pull Brazil's score up are the least likely to sit the test at all. Working engineers who use English every day don't need a placement test, and plenty of capable ones who doubt their English won't go looking for a number to confirm the doubt. I can't prove that with EF's data, but it lines up with what we hear in interviews every week.
To be fair, the index is getting better at this. The 2025 edition added AI-scored speaking and writing for the first time, according to EF's own announcement, so it's no longer only reading and listening.
Is the EF EPI a reliable way to judge a candidate's English?
No, and EF doesn't claim it is. Use it as a rough map of the region: it's a fair signal that you'll find a deep bench of strong English speakers in Buenos Aires, for example. Don't use it to screen a person.
A 20-minute conversation about a project the candidate actually shipped tells you more than any country average. That's the whole reason our recruiting team runs live English interviews instead of leaning on certificates or self-reported levels.
The Confidence Gap: Why Strong Engineers Undersell Their English
A lot of the engineers we interview, Brazilians especially, rate their English a level or two below where it really is. You'll see "intermediate" on a LinkedIn profile from someone who then runs a 45-minute interview in English without breaking a sweat.
The pattern usually looks the same. Written English is solid, because they've spent years reading docs, GitHub issues and Stack Overflow threads in it. Spoken English is where the doubt kicks in, since they compare themselves to a native speaker and count every gap as a failure. The bar they hold themselves to is higher than the one your team actually needs.
For a hiring manager, this has one practical consequence: the self-reported level on a CV is a bad filter. If you only look at candidates who write "fluent" or "advanced," you'll miss engineers who'd pass your English interview easily and simply describe themselves more modestly. And you'll probably over-select for people who are confident, which isn't the same thing as being clear.
Why do Brazilian engineers rate their English lower than it is?
Part of it is how many of us learned. English in Brazil is often taught around grammar rules and correct answers, so "right" ends up meaning "sounds like a native." Anything short of that feels like a mistake, even when the other person understood every word.
Part of it is practice. Plenty of engineers read and write English daily but rarely speak it because their teams and clients have been local. The skill is there; it just hasn't been used out loud.
The good news is that this is the easiest kind of gap to close, because it closes on its own once someone is on a team that speaks English every day.
My personal note: I'm Brazilian, and for years I did exactly this. I could write a technical report or a long email in English without thinking twice, but the moment a call switched languages I'd tense up, convinced that anything short of a native accent was wrong. What changed it was daily use: enough meetings in English that the fear ran out of room. I see the same thing in candidates every week, and it's why I don't trust how anyone rates their own English, including me.
Which Roles Actually Need C1 English (and Which Don't)
Only a slice of engineering roles need near-fluent spoken English. For most individual-contributor seats, a clear B1 or B2 speaker does the job, and asking for C1 across the board shrinks your pool for no real gain.
This is how the requirements break down across the roles we recruit for:
| Role | Level we look for | What the English is used for |
|---|---|---|
| Lead or Staff engineer | C1 or higher, written and spoken | Running design reviews, writing RFCs, aligning with product and leadership |
| Client-facing roles (forward-deployed, solutions, consulting) | C1 or higher | Talking to customers directly, where a misunderstanding costs trust or a deal |
| Mid-level and senior IC on an internal team | B1 to B2, with clear communication | Standups, PR reviews, Slack, tickets, pairing |
The B2 line is where people get nervous, so it's worth reading what it means. The Council of Europe's CEFR global scale describes a B2 speaker as someone who follows the main ideas of complex text, including technical discussions in their own field, and talks with native speakers regularly without strain on either side. That's a pretty good description of a working engineer on a remote team.
Two recent clients, both fast-growing US companies, show where the C1 bar actually belongs. The first needed a fully client-facing Forward Deployed Engineer who'd work directly with their own customers, so strong spoken English was a hard requirement, and our English interview weighed as much as the technical rounds.
The second had been burned before by hires whose English didn't hold up, so they handed us their own English criteria and asked that every candidate we presented already meet most of them, scoring at least 4 out of 5 on each.
Is B2 English enough for a remote engineering team?
For most IC roles, yes, as long as the person communicates clearly. And B2 is often a practice gap more than a knowledge gap. Many of the engineers we place at B2 have read English for a decade but haven't spoken it daily.
What we've seen is that this moves fast once they're on an English-speaking team. Daily standups and code reviews are basically immersion, and engineers who start at B2 tend to sound like a different person within their first year.
The flip side is worth saying out loud. If you set a hard C1 requirement for a mid-level backend role, you're filtering out people who'd likely be at C1 a year into the job, and you're competing for a much smaller and more expensive group to get there.
Where the English Gap Is Real, and How We Test for It
The 15% who fell below the bar are real, and our 85% number has a limit you should know before you quote it.
Every candidate in our data had already passed our sourcing screen. That screen looks at career history and stack fit, and international experience counts for a lot, since engineers who've already worked with foreign teams usually arrive with stronger English. So our numbers describe the engineers who make it into our funnel. They don't describe every developer in Latin America, and I wouldn't use them that way.
There's also a gap between formats. Written, async English is almost always stronger than live spoken English, and a fast meeting with four native speakers talking over each other is a lot harder than a one-on-one interview. If your team runs on long, unstructured calls full of slang and inside jokes, the ramp-up will take longer, and you'll want to be more deliberate about meeting habits during the first few months. A written agenda and a recap in Slack go a long way.
And for client-facing roles that run sales calls or support escalations, the bar really is higher. A B2 engineer who's great on an internal team can struggle in front of an upset customer, and that's not a fair test to throw someone into in week one.
What should a CTO ask in a short English screen?
Skip the grammar quiz and the "tell me about yourself" warm-up, because both reward rehearsal. Twenty minutes of real technical conversation tells you far more. These are the kinds of prompts our recruiting team leans on:
- Walk me through a tradeoff you made on a recent project, and what you'd do differently now.
- Explain that same decision the way you would to a product manager who doesn't code.
- (Interrupt mid-answer with a follow-up question, and see how they recover.)
- Here's a vague ticket: what would you need to ask before you start building?
You're listening for whether they can make themselves understood and get back on track when the conversation turns. If they can do those things, a few grammar slips won't matter once they're on your team.
Conclusion
The English level you'll find in Latin America depends far more on how you measure it than on which country you're hiring in. Country rankings average everyone who took a free test. Self-reported levels on a CV reflect confidence as much as skill. A short live conversation about real work is the only measure that tells you how someone will do on your team, and in ours, 85% of candidates cleared the bar for their role.
If I were setting up a LATAM hiring process tomorrow, I'd do two things. I'd set the English requirement by role: C1 for leads, staff engineers and anyone talking to customers, clear B1 to B2 for everyone else. And I'd replace any certificate or self-assessment filter with a 20-minute technical conversation in English, run before the technical rounds so nobody wastes a day on a mismatch.
Teams that do this end up with a much bigger candidate pool than the rankings suggest, and they stop losing good engineers to a word on a LinkedIn profile.
Looking to hire LATAM engineers? Book a call with us
Disclosure
Disclosure: NeuronHire connects global companies with Latin American tech talent. The data and perspective in this article draw on our direct experience in this market, and we have a commercial interest in readers viewing LATAM hiring favorably.
