Should Bain really be in the same tier as Mckinsey and BCG
Obviously a spicy topic and please civil discussion only. IMO Bain is in a weird spot where it is noticeably worse than the other MB, but also clearly better than all T2s. Heres why:
- Bain is significantly smaller and younger than both McKinsey and BCG with half the employee, half the revenue, half the global footprint.
- Not sure why this is mentioned so little when comparing MBBs, but Bain's promotion cycle is one full year longer than M and B. That means when your friends make AP/P at MB, youre still stuck at senior manager at Bain. Even if you dont want to be a career consultant and only plan to stay in consulting for a few years, you will hit that 220k salary mark 1 year faster at M and BCG, compared to bain.
- Bain does very well their PE DD work (addressed in the next bullet), but are significantly lacking in other notable practices: Life Science, Pharma, and Federal. It is not as well-rounded as the other MB
- Bain does not exit better into PE than McKinsey or BCG, contrary to popular belief. Here it breaks down the number of MBB consultant moving to PE. As you can see, Mckinsey actually exits the best into PE by far, followed by BCG and then Bain. If the PE exits are not much better, then why would anyone want to spend so much more time working on PE DDs? They are more time consuming and less fun.
If I have to rank the major consulting firms, it would be:
McKinsey > BCG >>> Bain >>> T2 >>>>>> B4
potato po-tato
if we're judging only by PE outcomes:
Bain is smaller than MB, but it's still far bigger than OW, LEK, EYP, Kearney, or any other T2 consulting firm (at least in North America).
Most exit opportunities available to MBB are also available to T2, aside from MF/UMM PE Investments team and VC. I think it's fair to group Bain with MB since it's much better in PE placement than T2, and considering other exit opps, they're largely similar among MBB and T2.
I agree that placement at the middle market PE level is more due to self selection, rather than the strength of the brand. As mm pe often have much worse wlb with marginally better comp. Making it a tough sell to mbb consultant. With a much more PE-hardo population, Bain actually perform worse than MB in large cap PE recruitment. Shouldn’t this already show Bains advantage in PE is greatly exaggerated?
To your point about McKinsey having a larger class size: keep in mind that both BCG and McKinsey have a diamond structure, while Bain has a pyramid structure. From my experience at a target school, Bain also did not hire less associates than MB.so I doubt MB’s associate classes are that much larger than Bain’s.
I agree with a lot of what you said, here's what I would add:
Arguably Bain's PE focus sets it apart and many would consider its PEG as equally standout as McK. Self selection for PE interest does play a role. Whereas BCG is "in the same lane as" (and, in this lane, behind) McK.
Agree that bains peg practice is much stronger than McKinsey or BCG’s. But what’s the point when it doesn’t translate to better large cap PE outcome? Especially considering DDs are less interesting and more tiring than traditional strategy projects.
Maybe not everyone wants to work in MF PE…?
Its MB&B now, lol
Few of my good friends are at Bain. It's just different, they hire a wider array of candidates from various backgrounds and genuinely heavily emphasize culture. It's a wonderful experience and will set you up for much more than just being a PE bot. Startup exits, corporate, and yes PE given their buyside diligence work are all very good. Also it seems like a training grounds for becoming both a sharp thinker but also a strong leader/personality
This is a generic description of all consulting firms.
Fair enough
There are meaningful upsides to starting at Bain: centralized staffing (less internal competition and less stress), home office model (far less travel), smoother ramp-up (less attrition), heavier teams (better WLB), amazing culture.
My gf works at bain and is really smart and also hot. I know a lot of ugly / weird mckinsey and bcg people.
That really says everything
I’ll say something that hasn’t been mentioned- lifestyle at Bain is substantially better than McKinsey and BCG. Speaking as someone int NYO which is seen as a sweaty office, avg hours worked is probably 55-60 which is substantially less than Mck/BCG NYOs. This is due to larger teams rather than the lean structure that Mck / BCG employ. Yes, that means you get marginally less development and get promoted to associate 6-12 months slower, but that also means you don’t get burned as quickly and have a better life…all trade offs
Is Bain Cap similar in WLB to their consulting wing?
Not trying to discredit what you said, but an argument on culture and hours is very subjective and experience will vary from person to person. There are people at BCG and Mckinsey who work less than Bain consultants, and vice versa. While longer promotion time is shared regardless of performance or experience
yes culture is subjective but hours are not subjective, especially when you consider firms as a whole. Of course on the margin, there are people at bcg/mck that work less / people at bain working more, but as a whole / average I find it very hard to believe that bcg/mckinsey have better hours or even comparable hours to bain. structurally, I don't know how that's possible. (1) MBB bid for the same clients with very similar scopes but BCG/Mckinsey have smaller teams than Bain for the same scopes of work (2) even if team size is the same, the experience as a more junior team member (0-3 years) is certainly better - there are more tenure levels at bain so you have more protection/shielding as a junior team member because you aren't a workstream lead for your first year. Even as AC2 or even SAC, there are a number of cases where you'll report to a C who reports to the senior manager.
Obvoiusly, this means that you get "worse" experience because you aren't exposed to as much at Bain but that also means it's more sustainable. Not saying it's better or worse - just a tradeoff.
.
What? Maybe my UK perspective is skewed but if my goals were PE or anything related to the finance ecosystem i'm taking Bain > both BCG & Mck 10 times out of 10
Why does it matter?
Actually, I think the two graphs in the link taken together demonstrate a couple of interesting trends that I know to be true around the MBB -> PE pipeline. Bain was and is the best PE consulting brand, so they outperform their size in PE placements (seen in how McK only has 51% more professionals at MF despite being more than 2x as big as Bain). Up until COVID, McK was #2 in PE, while BCG's PE practice was by far the smallest. So in total headcount, you see McK "first" due to its sheer size, though proportionally less than Bain, and BCG is by far the smallest proportionally (BCG is only ~10% smaller than McK overall, but ~32% smaller in MF representation). In recent years though, PE has been a huge growth segment for BCG, and that in turn has dialed up interest among BCGers to pursue PE. So recent Associate numbers show McK and BCG equalizing (as BCG has caught up in PE market share), while Bain continues to lead proportionally to its size.
To your other points:
But there is a flaw with your PE placement per capita argument. You said it yourself: Bain is only smaller in the global context, not in the US. The link I provided was about US PE placement, which Bain's size is not smaller than M or B. In fact, Bain has a pyramid structure and MB have diamond structures, this means there may be even more associates at Bain in the US compared to BA/Asso in MB. So Bain is still weaker in MF placement compared to M and B.
as of today, bain had ~7k people in the US, and McK has ~13.3k (from LinkedIn), nearly twice as many staff. So I think my argument still stands! Bain also has 15k outside of the US, vs 27k for McK. So proportionally, the US to international split is about the same, but McK still has a much larger global footprint in absolute terms. When I say they're a non-factor, I mean they literally don't have offices or staff in some places (probably because the local consulting market can't support more than 1 or 2 of MBB). Within the US, even though they're clearly the smallest, they still compete on the same level as MB for a lot of meaty strategy work (though ofc, the bread and butter remains PE CDD)
This thread is very much through the lens of PE recruiting which is definitely a desirable exit opportunity but NOT the reason most people join consulting (as other have said, if your goal is PE investment teams then go to IB instead). If you forget about exit opportunities and just focus on the work you'll do, Bain is VERY different from McK / BCG. McK dominates the high-end corporate and government consulting market, with BCG as a distant second. Bain is not strong in this space in most verticals. So, if you want to do traditional management consulting, McK > BCG >>> Bain > S&, OW. If you want to do PE consulting, Bain > McK > EYP / LEK / BCG > S&, OW. I'm probably leaving a few names off here but, bottom-line, if you want to work for the top management consulting firm then do McK, if you want to work at the top management consulting firm but don't get McK then do BCG, if you want to work at the top PE consulting firm then do Bain, if you want to work at the top management consulting firm but don't get Bain then do EYP / LEK / BCG (because realistically you didn't get McK either). Changes are you change your mind on exit opportunities after doing 2-3 years there anyway.
Im guessing you meant "top PE consulting firms" in your second to last sentence?
Yes - I agree the whole discussion on MBB's PE exit is overhyped and not applicable to most consultants. But then my question would be what is the appeal of working in PE DD consulting? Correct me if Im wrong, but the consensus on DDs seems to be that they are long, sweaty, and repetitive. Most people only do the PIPE or PEG ring-fence to have PE project on their resume for buy-side exits. If we disregard the whole PE exit argument, whats the draw for Bain then? Since you will be working on less interesting project for the same pay and more intensity
This also does not explain why Bain should be grouped with Mckinsey and BCG. If we look on the RX side, A&M is probably the undisputed top dog there. Like Bain, A&M is very very strong in one vertical, and also has their decent management consulting arm. Not to mention A&M actually pays more than MBB too. So can we consider A&M, Bain, BCG, and Mckinsey to all be of the same calibre?
Have you ever done a PE CDD? If so, you would know that they are excellent for sharpening up on the consulting toolkit. You get really really fast and good at ramping on unfamiliar topics, information synthesis, running surveys, building slides, hammering out excel models etc. the only skill they aren't good for is managing client relationships and org dynamics, since there's very little client interaction until you become a manager. that's why many people are encouraged to do a stint in the ringfence by their staffers, even if they have no intention of going to PE
Rx consulting is considered a niche vertical, and the top 3 firms (A&M, FTI, and Alix) are all boutiques. The TAM for Rx is also a lot smaller than PE, and PE is obviously more "prestigious" given its relative status (you'd rather be making it rain with flashy transactions, than trying to turnaround a failing company). A&M might have a "decent" management consulting arm, but it doesn't come anywhere close to Bain's non-PE consulting. You have to remember that PE is only like, 40% of Bain's total revenue. Yes, that's a lot, but that's also multibillions of dollars of consulting fees that come from classic strategy projects in other verticals.
Correct on #1 - typo on my part :)
In terms of "what is the appeal of working in PE DD consulting," I think there's a ton of appeal! I know this forum is SUPER focused on exit opps / paths / what comes next, if you can certainly make a great career out of CDD work. It's VERY different from being on an investing team and I find it very interesting at a Partner level, although the first few years were rough.
In terms of why Bain is grouped in with McK and BCG, it's because they're the three largest strategy consulting firms and have been for years.
I think it's wrong to say that McK "dominates" ALL high-end corporate and government consulting, especially given that BCG is a close second in revenue. You could argue maybe BCG does higher volume of low value work, but their revenue/employee is about the same as McK's, so that doesn't check out. The only explanation is that they compete at a similar price point, ergo, similar types of work and clients.
For PE consulting - Bain >> McK = BCG > all others. Unfortunately for the T2s, now that BCG actually has a real track record in PE, its brand outweighs a lot of other considerations.
For general consulting - McK = BCG > Bain, outside of government, life sciences, and nonprofit, where Bain has low presence (though they do have Bridgespan, which is closely related but a distinct entity from Bain).
It's odd to me that you would claim Bain is not strong in most verticals when, for example, they invented the concept of the net promoter score. They have a very strong franchise in tech and consumer relative to their size.
I’m at a T2 that has a big CDD presence and we see BCG in the market much more than McK, for what it’s worth. (Unfortunately, we see BCG more and more and at lower and lower rates … keep getting undercut)
Former M. I find it hilarious how overweighted PE is in this discussion. While there might be some American bias to it (I'm in Europe), I haven't observed people being hyped about PE at my time at all.
The typical MBB hire is so much different than your average business/finance bro (I lean more to that archetype). But colleauges left and right to me were literally like chemists "with a passion for carbon capture" or OxBridge PhD's in biochemestry who couldn't even tell you what EBITDA is. Those type of people got super hyped about getting on R&D heavy projects in biopharma and also building their profile towards an exit in that kind of industries.
And even within the business majors (who are also present a lot, don't get me wrong) maybe like ~20-25% were interested in PE. The majority of business majors during my time was mostly interested in tech/digital, startups/VC or landing a corporate gig in their desired industry.
In summary, the vast majority (~60-70%) according to my experience absolutely despised PE. Like they fought tooth and nail to not get staffed on PE deals.
It is kind of ridiculous to discuss the reputation/attractivity/what not of MC firms based on how well they place into PE funds. Like I get you, I am also a finance bro who somehow ended up at MBB and mostly did PE/talked about PE exits but I was really a fringe case with a small group of friends who tried/did the same. Overall it is kind of a irrelevant business in terms of DD and most firms are just trying to get close to the funds for the big transformation programs in their PortCos.
Have been quite unimpressed by most of the former Bain employees I’ve met. They’re very sociable people but not particularly intelligent. McKinsey and BCG do seem to have a higher quality bar, with McKinsey’s being being the highest of the three.
Earum ut mollitia debitis necessitatibus nihil laboriosam perferendis. Consectetur quis debitis quidem qui.
Voluptas eius reprehenderit modi incidunt doloremque quo alias. Alias sint impedit laborum ut deleniti fuga impedit.
Voluptatum sed id dolorum enim aut. Beatae officiis eaque sequi labore adipisci sed. Id qui quo recusandae harum quos eligendi.
Quis consequatur voluptatem nobis earum totam et. Magnam consequatur temporibus quis rerum. Officia at neque eum dolorum quos neque minus voluptas. Est dignissimos libero odio nesciunt facere ea quae reiciendis. Quas mollitia deserunt nostrum. Qui enim aut ea rerum.
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...
Et tempora velit veniam at aut. Non dolorum qui numquam.