If You Can't Land a Role At MBB, What's The Next #1 Firm You Would Want to Work For
*Hypothetically speaking, most people pedestalize MBB for good reason. Interested in how the other T2's, or boutiques fare/if any of the boutiques are actually more desirable than MBB depending on the vertical.
Oliver Wyman
No question
Why is that? -- not well versed on that firm's background (never worked in consulting)
Second this. A lot of people saying OW, but no one saying whats good about it.
Oliver Wyman for sure
Oliver Wyman or S& Deals
Ok now what would come after Oliver Wyman? I know this forum doesn't like rankings, but I think it gives newcomers a good idea of the industry.
Agreed.
And what would come after the firm that would come after Oliver Wyman? And the firm that would come after the firm that would come after Oliver Wyman?
I think that's a step in the right directions but you forgot to mention the firm that comes after the firm that comes after the firm that comes after Oliver Wyman. And why Bain?
Definitely Oliver Wyman
What's the updated view on S& Deals? Curious to hear thoughts from people in the industry as the group has matured a bit over the past few years
Doing fine. Establishing itself into a LEK-esque role i.e., good commercial relationships with a few, reputable funds and a sprinkle of casework from other funds and strategics
Not sure how profitable the team actually is within the grand scope of things but PwC seems to be invested in continually growing it out so probably an indicator that it's a commercially successful buildout
Oliver Wyman
OW
S& Deals
MBB or bust. For real might as well join a startup or do equity research before you join a tier b consulting firm.
What do you expect to gain from posting such garbage content? You are adding no value here.
lol coming from the guy who is a post mba IB associate...
Getting an associate role is trivial compared to undergrad consulting recruiting at firms like S&, LEK, etc.
I worked at McKinsey pre-MBA fwiw
This is genuine advice. Not worth it to work at second tier consulting firm. You’ll have no shot of exiting to mba/ finance and you’ll be limited to mid tier corp exits
This is almost as high quality as GS_Associate's famous, and highly respected across the industry, "Private Equity Rankings (2021)".
Can one of the OW respondents elaborate on why it’s so clearly the choice for you ? I was under the impression that once you reach T2, there are a handful of firms that are pretty equivalent. I’ve also heard that there isn’t a ton of PE work at OW, which might be worth mentioning since this is a finance forum for the most part.
Solely in terms of VC/GE/PE exits, OW does better than the rest of T2. If you research enough you will find this to be true (networking, linkedin, institutions’ websites ranging from UMM firms to VC firms).
Also, I do not work there. Just interested in consulting and have been doing my own due diligence for the best options in consulting (besides MBB) for investing role exits. Don’t listen to me though. I urge you to do your own diligence as that is what matters at the end of the day.
Lastly, why do people MS other people’s opinions..ow mbb s&....who cares. All good firms. So much more important things in life...we’re in a pandemic. Work hard but most importantly stay safe and check on ur fam. Cheers.
Surprised that nobody has mentioned Kearney yet. Tbh i think that Kearney, PWC Strat&, Delloitte S&O, and OW are all pretty equal in terms of exit opps -- at that point its more about which firm you vibe with / what group you get placed in. IMO though I would rather be at a firm that's leading in its space -- if I can't be at an MBB I'd rather be at a top notch specialist like an A&M for restructuring / turnaround or Altman for TMT than be at a T2 generalist program.
Kearney is obviously a good firm. I do disagree with your take on specialist vs t2 generalist though. Altman Vilandrie's tech exits are no better than the T2s and restructuring is a very particular type of consulting that you would need a real interest in before committing. For the typical undergad who goes into consulting recruiting, the T2s still offer a great value prop to get wide exposure and solid exits (which is typically what they are looking for). It's also pretty straightforward to go from T2 ->Altman/Alix/A&M if you want to.
Kearney just has a different focus. They are solid ops guys. All these firms are great.
I didnt get MBB so I went into IB at an EB. Ended up liking it so sticking with it for FT
Really depends on the geography. Unlike other responders, OW is not big in my country (emerging economy in Asia). It'd be Kearney or LEK here.
Not sure why everyone is obsessed with OW on this forum. Their midlevel pay is pretty bad
True but I imagine the undergrads interested usually won't last to see themselves underpaid compared to all the other T2s. Entry level pay (first 3-4 years) is really quite good
Choosing firms based on a +/- 10% pay differential is playing into the hands of consulting firm leadership teams who set prices as a false carrot to dangle in front of undergrads / MBA hires. That pay doesn't really matter in the long term.
Altman Solon (formerly Altman Vilandrie) is really underrated for exits into big tech companies/startups (e.g. Netflix, Uber, etc.). Haven't seen that many exits to the buyside but it is possible (e.g. check out M/C Partners in Boston - they've taken a few Altman guys).
My 2 cents...
At entry level OW, Kearney, LEK and the Big 4 Strategy shops are all somewhat comparable. I don't think the name of the firm will impact your future prospects as much as your hustle, staffing and how much Managers / Sr. Managers / Partners like you. People from all of these firms get into M7 schools if they have decent stats (albeit at a lower rate than MBB) and, in my observations, go to similar exits. PE exists may be stronger at the DD shops (LEK, S& Deals, EY-Parthenon in particular... I've actually never seen many people from OW go buy-side but maybe that's just me) but I don't understand why someone would go into consulting aiming for PE, just go into banking which has a much better pipeline.
For mid-level and more senior-level folks, the difference between the "true" consulting firms (OW, Kearney, LEK, etc.) and Big 4 Strategy becomes more apparent. I personally think the Big 4 model is more future-proof given the scope of services they can provide and the power of cross-sell but I prefer the "true" consulting firm model where you won't be conflicted out of deals, be pressured to cross-sell to Advisory / Tax teams, have more international exposure and generally have a better "one firm" mentality. Ultimately, though, this is a consolidating industry and I wouldn't be surprised if in 15 years pretty much MBB (Bain is a question mark) and Big 4 are the only shops left standing (besides small boutiques), but that's a topic for another day...
TLDR; after MBB (the clear top three), at entry level I think people tend to overstate the differentiation between the T2 firms listed above but, as you move up the ranks, they generally sort into two buckets, Big 4 and non-Big 4, with pros and cons to either model.
Bain has actually been the fastest growing of MBB over the past few years and has reached "critical scale" IMO. If they had stagnated a decade back, it'd be a different story, but they're now (in terms of size) where BCG was about 5 years ago. Also clear differentiation and spikes that will keep it relevant.
Not sure why people on WSO view Bain as a "question mark" on WSO, other than the natural human bias towards applying goldilocks logic to any group of 3 (in this case, MBB).
Unpopular opinion but..... Oliver Wyman ;)
I don't understand why everyone says OW. First decide if you want a generalist or specialist experience. For generalist, I'd go for S& probably. If not generalist then just go for the ones with expertise in your desired vertical. OW has very undesireable verticals if you ask me (FS, Risk, bleh) but that's personal.
Pretty sure you join a certain group when you recruit/get into strategy& while in OW you start off as a generalist.
Yeah does S& no longer make you align to a vertical when you start out now?
S& puts you directly into verticals. OW starts you on a generalist program. Have friends at both.
Would choose OW, especially if you want a generalist program...and arguably stronger exits all around (including investing roles).
OP. The acronym is MBBD for a reason.
Does the D stand for "Delusional"?
OP I feel the need to be clear that I was kidding. The acronym is not, in fact, MBBD (as shown by the MS, which was appropriately given assuming I was commenting at face value)
In my experience, however, is that outside of MBB, it's less clear cut on what's the next best. The gains one could have from 'prestige' are likely marginal at best and the answer should really come down to people, location and other personal considerations / interests you may have (e.g., OW = financial services, parthenon = DD only, etc.)
It depends, I'm healthcare focused so the firm I'm at now, regularly beats out MBB.
Which firm
ZS is the only one that does it semi-consistently
Work at OW - I agree with the people saying there isn't that much of a difference between the T2's. I would personally also choose by industries you care about on top of the people aspect. OW is pretty strong in a few core industries in the US (FS, industrials, airlines, health insurance) and at exits to tech bizops and FS ops roles. I'm sure similar things can be said about all the other T2's, but I won't speak to them since I probably have a skewed view of where they do the bulk of their work as an outsider.
With no context, OW is probably a "safe" choice but by no means is it the "best" choice. And is definitely not the best choice if you have a strong interest in stuff OW (US) just doesn't do much off, like high tech, pharma, retail, etc.
Apple or Netflix.
Oh, another consulting firm...
Oliver Wyman.
Alix/FTI/A&M for restructuring and transactions work.
..
Alvarez & Marsal - they have a pretty insane bonus structure if you're billing hours. Plus, I' m a finance guy at heart, so restructuring/OCFO work is actually appealing to me.
This forum is biased towards finance, which is why OW is getting a lot of love here. If financial services is your cup of tea, that's great. But for me, some of that stuff can be pretty dull - e.g., regulations, compliance, etc.
In any case, there are honestly a set of firms that I think that if anyone hypothetically had offers to all of them, they wouldn't be making a wrong decision. OW, Kearney, LEK, and some of the B4 strategy groups (S&, EYP, Deloitte S&A or whatever they're calling it nowadays).
Personally, my preference is more towards the "truer" consulting firms (i.e. the former 3), but can totally understand why some people would lean towards one of the B4 strategy groups.
And then on top of all of that, you have specialized boutiques that are very well respected in their niches that can attract recruits (e.g., Clearview for healthcare).
Note that it's also slightly market dependent. For example, in Canada, the next best options are undoubtedly Oliver Wyman and Kearney with a significant gap after that. The B4 strategy groups are much weaker in Canada and also pay a lot less. In fact, Big 4 strategy is weak in many regions outside of the U.S.
For money: Galt & Co, or A&M Restructuring (These both pay more than MBB)
Interest: Altman (they do a lot of cool TMT work), or Dalberg (Intl relations and EM projects)
Cap one strat or something similar(Disney Amex)
Kearney, Oliver Wyman and Strategy& in that order, but this would vary slightly by geography.
Kearney is probably the only other pure-play global consultancy in the world that works across a diverse range of industries, followed by OW which is less pure-play given M&M ownership and heavier indexing towards FS work (with a lot of it being risk work). Strategy& has maintained a good consulting legacy from Booz & Co and is growing a strong Deals team, but their premium consulting work gets diluted given the constant pressure to cross-sell downstream consulting and audit services through the PwC network.
K is ultra focused on sourcing, how exactly does that constitute a "pure play strategy" firm?
Agreed that OW does a ton of work. But if anything, if you measure by % strategy work done, S& probably comes out ahead of other T2s of similar scale, despite not having much presence in APAC
Know of K doing non-procurement work in multiple geographies and they tend to be better represented across industries than OW. Still is a massive gap between all three firms and MBB in terms of being a true pure-play firm.
The take on MBB isn't even correct. They certainly get a lot of the strategy work out there but its such a small part of the market. Like the growth in revenue from these consulting firms isn't coming from strategy work, its from the less sexy work.
Oliver Wyman
Alvarez & Marsal. I probably would've taken an offer from them over at least one of the MBBs.
That would have been a terrible choice. They specialize almost entirely in telecom and have very poor brand recognition outside (and in many cases even inside) the consulting industry.
I think you’re thinking of Altman Solon. If you are I agree with those comments
alvarez and marsal is a restructuring specialist that works across industries and is probably at least as well known as the T2 consulting firms. Kinda surprised people are throwing it around as ‘next best after MBB’ though. It’s very different from strategy consulting, it’s a pretty good company but if your attracted to a generalist experience and exit ops (what most kids who want a consulting job want) it’s not really suited for that
Ut quos minus quos qui. In rerum eum laboriosam rerum mollitia aut. Laudantium voluptatum est quod cum. Ea et quo similique.
Reprehenderit nisi placeat perspiciatis libero cupiditate veritatis. Recusandae sed temporibus nam porro rem. Nihil doloremque nobis natus provident sequi minus natus. Necessitatibus ipsam ipsum error. Quae dicta mollitia numquam voluptatem. Blanditiis labore inventore hic recusandae in voluptatem.
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...
Nisi et qui tempora quod. Ut at et culpa et quasi. Reprehenderit odit fugiat ullam deleniti tenetur distinctio aspernatur qui. Nulla aliquam dolor occaecati saepe facilis sit et. Iste mollitia libero omnis voluptates fugiat nesciunt eius.
Possimus sunt molestiae est velit. Saepe rerum natus voluptate dignissimos aperiam aut. Est iste repudiandae officiis ipsa. Et tempore recusandae adipisci explicabo ipsam quisquam velit. Alias quas nisi et corrupti.
Necessitatibus aut non quia impedit perspiciatis modi. Et facilis doloremque enim voluptatibus at aut consequatur quod. Quisquam qui sunt praesentium iste deserunt. Veritatis alias quo nostrum reiciendis provident. Vel nemo hic expedita temporibus odio. Recusandae rerum alias rem ab.
Similique non sed cupiditate dolorem dolorem. Maxime aut ut quis aliquid. Aut dolore numquam dolor assumenda. Quia assumenda vitae sunt omnis eaque.
A temporibus omnis consectetur nihil beatae amet temporibus. Est mollitia at dolorum aperiam. Aut est sed eos quia. Dolor et amet laudantium atque incidunt.
Consequatur nulla nostrum quibusdam est iusto. Culpa ipsam et sit unde. Voluptatem dolorem occaecati quia occaecati doloremque. Dolores optio ad aut ducimus quidem iure.
A quidem commodi officiis tempore minus aut. Officiis molestias corporis nisi sunt repellat ut. Ab aut nemo unde illum rerum.
Totam maxime qui quae inventore dolores dolores voluptate. Iure cupiditate adipisci aut dicta quae in laboriosam.
Ullam autem voluptatem debitis voluptate. Voluptatem officia sed deserunt exercitationem. Fugit non et et est quis assumenda incidunt.
Molestiae itaque sequi qui. Enim delectus tempora et qui.
Possimus eos nulla quasi labore reprehenderit sit. Modi laudantium sit quia quisquam. Dolorum placeat velit praesentium atque et.
Dolor animi voluptas modi. Doloremque autem molestias voluptas nobis illum quia. Voluptatem ea quas est voluptatem illum.