“I found my mentoring session with André very helpful, particularly because I came into it with very little understanding of commercial banking. My background is in life sciences and healthcare, and most of my career exploration so far has focused on consulting. Although I had become interested in commercial banking, I had not previously explored the area in any depth. I therefore needed a clear starting point and an honest conversation about what I should understand before deciding whether to pursue it.
André helped me establish that starting point. The session gave me a clearer way to think about commercial banking, how it differs from consulting, and what I still need to learn. Before the conversation, I was looking at opportunities and wondering whether I should begin applying alongside consulting applications. Afterwards, I understood that I needed to take a step back and make a more informed decision about whether the work genuinely interests me.
One of the most valuable aspects of the session was how it helped me recognise the gaps in my current understanding. I knew that I was new to banking, but I did not necessarily know which questions I needed to answer for myself. André’s guidance helped me think more clearly about where I am now, what I am missing, and what I should begin doing next. Having that direction was useful because it made the process feel more manageable. Rather than treating banking as a broad and unfamiliar industry, I now have a clearer starting point for learning about it.
A particularly helpful message was that I should first develop a better understanding of commercial banking and assess whether I actually like the work. I took away a sensible sequence: understand the area, decide whether it appeals to me, and then, if it does, commit to learning and preparing for applications. If I discover that the work does not suit my interests, I should be willing to recognise that and focus my efforts elsewhere. That advice sounds straightforward, but it was an important perspective for me at this stage.
The conversation made me realise that I should not rush into applying for commercial banking roles simply because I have found programmes that look interesting. Before the session, I was at risk of moving too quickly from curiosity to applications without having a strong enough understanding of the career itself. André helped me see the value of being more deliberate. I would rather make a considered application based on a genuine interest in the work than spend time applying to positions I cannot yet explain my motivation for pursuing.
Another important takeaway was recognising how substantial the differences between banking and consulting can be. Because consulting has been my main focus, it had become my reference point when thinking about other careers. The session helped me realise that I cannot assume banking will involve similar work, suit the same preferences, or require exactly the same preparation. I need to understand banking on its own terms rather than view it mainly as another option alongside consulting.
I also appreciated that the session was useful even though I did not finish it with a final career decision. At this exploratory stage, greater clarity about what I do not yet know is meaningful progress. I now feel better equipped to evaluate my interest, identify what I need to learn, and decide whether commercial banking deserves a more focused place in my career plans.
Overall, André was very helpful, and the session met an important need for me as someone starting with limited knowledge of the field. Its greatest value was giving me direction and encouraging a more thoughtful approach to my next steps. I left with a clearer understanding of my knowledge gaps, a more realistic perspective on the difference between banking and consulting, and a better sense of how to move forward before committing to applications.”
So to caveat all this, almost everyone who chooses Path A will, at some point, look at Path B and think "did I miss something", which is pretty natural. Doesn't mean path B is necessarily better, both are good and mutually exclusive. That being said, I'm currently at a top PC firm (Apollo, BX, KKR etc) and the way I'd think about it is if the PC firm I got an offer at is either 1) MF / elite credit or UMM / elite MM credit, I'd take it over a T2 RX consulting offer, if we're looking at prestige/ exit opps (this is variable, if you're committed enough, you can get anywhere from either background). There are around 11-16 PC firms for me personally that qualify in the above two tiers. Below that is the gray zone, PC is not definitively better than RX co, even though PC is more "investing" and RX co is more "operating". This is T2 RX co, not T1. Ofc to caveat all this is if the PC work is vanilla and you're trying to get into the distressed world.
Comp wise, you're right, I know a fair amount of people at T2 / T3+ Rx consulting firms that make significantly more than I do, so if that's the only thing you're optimizing for. However, not all RX consulting firms offer a billable comp scheme or extremely high pay, due diligence is required. Also something to keep in mind, the people with a billable structure depend on work, since more work = more comp. In seasons where work isn't as good, less comp. In comparison, PC's "traditional" comp scheme is more stable. At firms like A&M etc this isn't a problem because they almost always have work, and the same is true for some smaller consultancies. Check their dealflow / utilization.
Take this from someone in the RX consulting world - we love people with experience since it's a very niche industry that also requires people to hit the ground running from day 1. If you really want it, it'll be there in a few years for you.
Also, I'd be weary of the "sudden interest" in RX consulting on WSO. Outside of the lack of WLB at times, I love the work, but it's not something most people in IB/MBB would like or thrive in. You have to really be willing to roll up your sleeves and do some non-sexy accounting/FP&A work, which is not something people in the investing side are necessarily good it. It's not rocket science, but it's very different to be handed clean financials and performing some higher-level analysis from there vs being handed a GL dump of vendor data and sorting through which ones you can stretch or resource from.
My firm has actually hired a lot of MBB people and a lot of them haven't lasted beyond one year or so because they don't have the Excel or finance background to really thrive, since much of the work is finance/liquidity-based.
Ullam nostrum ipsam amet qui quisquam. Possimus esse magnam accusantium porro consectetur odio ducimus et. Deserunt ea nihil qui corrupti qui aut dignissimos modi. Amet tenetur ut eligendi incidunt rem pariatur. Qui eos est est.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...