MBB vs T3/T3 exit opps (corp)
I'm not a consultant, but after talking to some college friends in various consultancies (from MBB to smaller boutiques), there doesn't seem to be a big difference between the exits of MBB people and those from less prestigious consultancies when it comes to corporate roles. (Some move into strategy roles, while others focus on more operational roles.)
Could someone clarify the difference in exits, and is it correct that most end up in corporate roles?
Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's what you need to know about exit opportunities from MBB (McKinsey, BCG, Bain) versus Tier 2/Tier 3 consultancies when it comes to corporate roles:
Exit Opportunities from MBB:
Exit Opportunities from Tier 2/Tier 3 Consultancies:
General Trends:
In summary, while there are similarities in the types of corporate roles consultants from both MBB and Tier 2/Tier 3 firms can secure, MBB consultants generally have a slight edge in accessing higher-level strategic roles. However, the specific exit opportunities can vary based on individual experience and the industry of the corporate role.
Sources: Q&A: MBB Manager Continental Europe, How is EY Parthenon viewed vs MBB, Q&A: Alternative Path to F100 Corporate Strategy w/ Exit Details, Q&A: Big Four Valuation Associate - Deciding Whether This Job Is Right For You, Exiting from Corporate Development
My speculation from being on both sides (consulting and corporate strategy):
PE and desirable startups definitely prefer the MBB. Corporate exits do as well, but a lot of corporates are willing to hire people from other firms too. The 'sexy' corporates like big tech, large CPGs like PepsiCo, large financial institutions, etc... definitely have MBB-heavy teams in their strategy department. People definitely know the MBB name, and that helps land interviews/offers. That being said, lesser known corporates might not care as much since they might not get the volume of MBB applicants that they want. A lot of strategy teams were filled with 'lower tier' consulting applicants, but with the market tightening they were able to be more selective and fill their teams with MBB people who got pushed out.
But a big difference I have notices is that an MBB with 1.5 years of experience is often seen as a prime candidate, whereas I feel like with lower tier firms you need more years of experience. That is because at MBB you are thrown in the weeds much faster. At the 1-year mark, you are expected to basically run a workstream and own client relationships, doing end-to-end analysis independently. At many of the lower tier firms, you don't have this level of responsibility until a bit later on in tenure.
That being said, if you do a specialty role at a boutique, you will be a prime candidate for a similar corporate role. And a lot of companies look at industry/functional experience as well.
Error temporibus at omnis voluptate. Laborum voluptatem odit non sint.
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...