Market Sizing

Do you guys recommend top-down or bottom up? I personally feel more confident in bottom up but I often will end up splitting my assumptions too deeply and then my numbers get messy and all over the place. The thing for top down is that I don’t really get fantastic justifications for my assumptions. One is too simple and the other is too complex. Can anyone help me strike a middle ground?

6 Comments
 
Most Helpful

From experience (and from interviewing candidates), I'll say the following points:

  • Top Down is usually easier, and works well for the majority of market sizing questions (though not for all, I admit):
    • Yes, your assumptions are a little harder to justify, but just go with them until you have a result you can sense check down the line, then go back and revise your assumptions that seem least plausible or which affect your result the most
    • It requires fewer assumptions (in general) to get to your result
    • It is easier to anchor on big numbers that are less objectionable (e.g., US population) than to smaller numbers based on experience / guesswork (e.g., avg footfall in a retail store in a shopping mall)
  • For the times where Top Down is not easier / not helpful, then of course go Bottom Up, but be careful:
    • You will need way more assumptions than for Top Down usually (e.g., you may need different assumptions for # of sessions per day in a cinema depending on the weekend or a weekday), even if they may be easier to justify, because they're more based on lived experiences
    • I have seen often that most people end up over estimating their target number when going bottom up, that's usually due to mistakenly taking an uncommon occurence (e.g., a full movie theatre or restaurant on a Saturday night) for the average, so be careful to take appropriate haircuts where useful

Either way you choose to go, know that you should sense check (1) your approach / structure, (2) your assumptions, and (3) your results.

Best of luck!

 

Thank you so much for the insights. Another general idea: do you have any recommendation on whether either style makes a candidate shine brighter? I definitely feel Top down leans more on broad world knowledge but bottom up is more quantitatively rigorous (as it were).

Is it even ok to use a mix of both; for instance, if I were to start with a bottom down structure and then I needed to scale up to the national level, could I throw in larger numbers to help me scale up to that? Or would I have to segment those numbers too

 

Sure, however, I can only speak from my experience, interviewing for Bain London:

  • It does not matter which approach you choose, however be aware that there is no bonus point for using a more convoluted method to get to a result. What I mean is, if one way is simpler and gets you the right answer, that's enough. You get full marks (so to speak). Whereas, if you try and struggle / fail because you used a harder approach, there's no discount for that
  • I would not mix & match. Instead, I'd pick one, and if it quickly turns out that the method is too cumbersome / difficult, ask if it's ok to try another approach, and go the other way. If anything, that shows flexibility and good judgement
 

Illum exercitationem nesciunt itaque veniam porro qui voluptatibus. Natus natus facere eveniet est. Eveniet tempora placeat est ea debitis at.

Ab dicta doloremque facilis veniam vel et itaque. Quibusdam cumque delectus harum et aperiam natus. Maxime iste accusantium occaecati consequatur porro.

Totam sit dolorem cum ut earum at rerum. Enim rerum provident aut molestiae quos est. Sed exercitationem mollitia perspiciatis quasi pariatur nostrum consequuntur. Dicta amet rerum omnis consectetur nihil consequatur a accusantium. Voluptate ex veniam sunt. Ipsam dolor et dolores aliquid. Assumenda placeat repellat voluptas dicta sit assumenda.

Nulla similique nulla dolores omnis cupiditate asperiores sed. Animi dolorem mollitia eveniet. Eaque commodi voluptatem atque natus eos. Amet voluptas ipsam dolorem provident.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Consulting

  • Boston Consulting Group 99.5%
  • Bain & Company 99.0%
  • McKinsey and Co 98.5%
  • Oliver Wyman 98.0%
  • LEK Consulting 97.4%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Consulting

  • Cornerstone Research 99.5%
  • Bain & Company 99.0%
  • Boston Consulting Group 98.5%
  • McKinsey and Co 98.0%
  • Oliver Wyman 97.4%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Consulting

  • Bain & Company 99.5%
  • Boston Consulting Group 99.0%
  • McKinsey and Co 98.5%
  • Oliver Wyman 98.0%
  • LEK Consulting 97.4%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Consulting

  • Partner (4) $361
  • Principal (30) $294
  • Director/MD (58) $274
  • Vice President (53) $247
  • Engagement Manager (111) $232
  • Manager (167) $172
  • 2nd Year Associate (185) $142
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (115) $135
  • Senior Consultant (354) $132
  • Consultant (635) $122
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (162) $121
  • 1st Year Associate (575) $121
  • NA (16) $114
  • Engineer (6) $114
  • 2nd Year Analyst (390) $104
  • Associate Consultant (175) $100
  • 1st Year Analyst (1152) $90
  • Intern/Summer Associate (205) $83
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (626) $67
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
10
Linda Abraham's picture
Linda Abraham
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”