T2 Consulting VS Big 4 Consutling
I'm a freshman at IU Kelley interested in pursuing a career in management consulting, based on prestige, lateraling, and work culture which type of consulting is better? I personally feel like Big 4 companies like Deloitte/PWC take the edge compared to companies like LEK/Kearney. But please feel free to give your input. It is early in my college career to be thinking about this but I would like to get an idea of which direction to head in. MBB is my goal but I may need to have a backup plan. Thanks
bump
T2 (S&/EY-P/ATK/LEK/OW) pay better and generally offer more interesting work vs B4
It's also a lot easier to get a B4 offer vs a T2 offer in general
Thank you for your comment, could you explain the difference in the type of work and projects between the 2? Thanks
On an overgeneralized & oversimplified level, you're going to be getting more strategy work / figuring out what companies should do, vs operational excellence / implementation / helping them do them
Note that T2s are usually more specialized to a few industries and/or types of work that they're really good at, while B4 will kind of do everything (but an individual employee will not -- you won't get a generalist experience at a B4)
Beyond that, for T2s you need to learn what each firm actually does through online research & networking, and for B4 you need to remember that you'd be hired into pretty specific teams/groups that you'd want to learn about before accepting an offer
In general, MBB > T2 > B4 is not a controversial statement from a post-college offer perspective, so if you can get the T2 offer you should almost certainly accept it over a competing B4 offer unless you hate the firm's specializations
Kelley Alum here: IU leads you to believe it's Big4-or-bust. They push the B4 simply for recruiting and a formula that works well in Kelley's favor.
Deloitte is definitely a different animal compared to the rest of B4 consulting, but it's still the Big 4 in terms of culture. I recently switched from MBB to a "T2" firm and the cultures are much better than what a PWC or an EY would offer. Projects are significantly more interesting, pay is usually better, and it's less bureaucratic.
Kelley does not do a great job on recruiting to T2 firms, none of them actually come to campus (except LEK). IU alums at those firms are really willing to connect via LinkedIn, so reach out and you'll likely get a response.
In terms of "T2 firms", here are my thoughts:
ATK: great people, very strong culture fit in interviews, lots of non-business people (pros and cons), operations focused in the US, top-tier pay.
LEK: great people, strong IU network, sweatshop, not as much travel, interesting projects in consumer goods and life sciences
S&: Lots of project variety, access to PWC resources, but I've heard of culture issues and clashes.
ZS: I don't consider them T2.
RB: solid people and projects, very Europe focused (good if you're trying to go there), small firm benefits in the US.
OW: not to familiar with them, but I've heard of solid PE and Automotive practices
Glad to hear a fellow Kelley chime in, I greatly appreciate your input, thank you for going in depth on the various cultures of the T2 firms. I heard that LEK recruits on campus how are the exit opps for start ups/product management roles from LEK and the other T2s? If we could connect over linkedin that would be great, I would be happy to PM you.
If you look on LinkedIn, you can see what former LEK people are doing: FAANG, Big Pharma, startups, pretty varied. The other T2 firms don't actively recruit at Kelley, but LinkedIn is a good start for networking.
Feel free to PM. Good luck!
Out of curiosity, if you are willing to share, why did you leave MBB for a T2?
Main Reason #1: I was able to move into a very specific practice group that I was interested in.
Main Reason #2: I wanted to move to a smaller firm, where things were a bit more personal and friendly, rather than just a rat race. The evaluation systems were brutal and I was sick of trying to be the 1% of the 1%. Knowing every partner on a first name basis in your office and being able to pass your HR person and ask a quick question in the hallway is really nice.
Minor Reasons: pay was better, more freedom to pick projects, people were more down-to-earth, less up-or-out culture
Any insights on salary bumps?
T2 will be better across most areas and is the obvious pick 90% of the time because they pay so much more. However, if you are genuinely interested in tech consulting type work, Accenture, followed by Big 4 will be better. Tech consulting isn't as interesting as it might sound given its name (think implementing big enterprise software for a years on end).
You might think that the size of Big 4 will lead to more diverse projects, but that won't be the case since they tend to force you into a specific domain the minute you join. The main benefit of T2s, is that they pay so much more than Big 4. Because the pay gap between T2s and Big 4 is so large, there's almost no reason to choose a Big 4 over T2. For example S& pays 50-70% more than PwC at the Senior Associate level. In terms of pay, S& Senior Associate = PwC Senior Manager. You can argue T2s work more hours and have a more stressful job, but if you're in consulting, you're going to be working hard anyway.
Big 4 really only has 1 notable advantage over T2, and its mainly that its brand name is more recognizable (but not necessarily better). People who know consulting will know that T2 firms are better, but Big 4 is more broadly recognized and in some industries, people lump all consultants together, without much knowledge of consulting firms and prestige. Generally, for Corporate Strategy exits, T2 will place much better than Big 4, because most people in Corp Strategy are ex-consultants and they know which firms are better. For MBA admissions, T2 will definitely place better also. However, for more general exits to a wider array of functions, Big 4 can actually edge out T2. Outside of the consulting bubble, the average person doesn't really have an opinion of Deloitte vs Kearney, but they might not even recognize the latter.
TLDR: Big 4 has some advantages over T2, but you'll almost always be better off joining a T2 over Big 4. One of the biggest reasons for this is simply that T2 pays so much more.
I do agree that T2>B4 but I will highlight for future forum readers that if you get into a good group at B4 (strategy or ops) people in my country tend to have very strong exit ops.
Autem voluptatem reprehenderit quam. Dolores ut ipsam debitis sit beatae et. Maiores saepe quas expedita nulla ea voluptate eius in.
Est natus vel sapiente beatae quam. Nisi soluta perferendis architecto. Quos voluptatem voluptatem eligendi eius et vel. Aut non ut ut cupiditate debitis.
Magni laboriosam magnam voluptas fuga quisquam libero quibusdam. Quia quis doloribus laboriosam ipsam. Dicta doloremque quia molestias explicabo enim.
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...