Best MFin for MF PE / HF Exits?
Currently deciding where to apply for my Master’s and would appreciate a reality check from people who know these programs.
Context:
- European undergrad target outside the UK (Management/Finance)
- Graduated top 1%, i.e. 1:1
- Leadership role in a finance society
- Now doing a gap year with 3x M&A internships, 1x EB
- 685 GMAT Focus (740 10th Edition)
Hoping to land a solid 2027 SA in London and convert to FT. Obviously nothing is guaranteed, but assuming I start out at a strong BB / EB, I am trying to understand which Master’s would give me the best long-term optionality.
Main goal would be MF PE or a fundamental HF after IB (although I have seen a few people use these programs to recruit directly into HFs, less so for PE). Fully aware that both are extremely competitive and that the Master’s alone will not get me there. Just trying to maximize my chances and keep as many doors open as possible.
Current list:
- Oxford MFE
- MIT MFin
- Princeton MFin
- Cambridge MPhil Finance
- LSE MSc Finance
- HEC MIF
- LBS MFA
- Maybe HSG, although not my favorite
Would most likely stay in London, unless MIT / Princeton creates a realistic path to NYC.
Planning to apply to all of them. How would you rank them purely for buy-side exits after IB? Fully aware that the Master’s itself is not going to move the needle much, but still curious to hear how you think about it.
Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's how these programs stack up for buy-side exits (MF PE or HF) after IB:
Oxford MFE: Strong reputation in Europe, particularly for buy-side exits. Its alumni network and brand name carry weight in London, making it a top choice for your goals.
MIT MFin: Exceptional for quantitative finance and NYC opportunities. If you're open to relocating to the U.S., this program offers strong connections to hedge funds and some PE firms.
Princeton MFin: Similar to MIT, it's highly quantitative and well-regarded in the U.S. However, its smaller class size and niche focus might limit its direct buy-side appeal compared to MIT.
LSE MSc Finance: A powerhouse in London with a strong alumni network in IB and buy-side roles. It's a solid choice for staying in London and maximizing optionality.
HEC MiF: Highly regarded in Europe, with strong placement into IB and buy-side roles. Its alumni network is particularly robust in Paris and London.
LBS MFA: A newer program but gaining traction. Its location in London and ties to the finance industry make it a good option, though it may not yet rival the top-tier programs.
Cambridge MPhil Finance: Prestigious but more academic in nature. While it has a strong brand, it may not be as directly targeted by buy-side recruiters as Oxford or LSE.
HSG (St. Gallen): Known for its finance focus and strong placement in Europe, but it may not carry the same weight in London or NYC as the others on your list.
Key Considerations:
If your primary goal is MF PE or HF in London, prioritize Oxford MFE, LSE MSc Finance, and HEC MiF. If you're open to NYC, consider MIT MFin or Princeton MFin.
Sources: Breakdown of Post-IB Exit Opportunities, Exit opps: I've crunched the previous work experience of 390 PE Associates.., Breakdown of Post-IB Exit Opportunities
I'll talk about Europe/UK since I don't know about US. Here your school isn't that relevant for MF exits it's mostly your bank that matters so realistically what you're prioritizing is how good of a bank you can start at. Then you're just looking at which school has the best placements. There have been literally 1000 posts about this so I won't repeat everything but the 3 strongest are almost certainly Oxford/HEC/LBS. I'd say each of the three have benefits and downsides over the other (e.g Oxford places well but is very busy which can fuck you over, HEC is cheap but you don't have Visa sponsorship which could be relevant, LBS is in London and lighter course load but some people say placements haven't been as great last few years.) so at that point I'd prioritize personal preference + which one you can get into since admissions can be pretty random for some of them. For Oxford for example that GMAT will almost certainly hurt you. But yeah can't go wrong with either.
Thanks for the reply, appreciate the insights.
One thing I'm still unsure about is the HF angle. Do you think Oxford, MIT, and Princeton actually have an edge because they're more quantitative, or is that largely overstated once you're at a top BB / EB? That's also why I've been a bit hesitant about LBS. It seems less quant-heavy, and I'm not sure whether that matters if I want to keep HF recruiting as an option later. Not saying I want to join a quant fund, but I feel like the standard business school might not be enough - maybe I'm completely wrong though.
Also, on the GMAT, do you think a retake is worth it? Or can my undergrad record, internships, and extracurriculars offset the score enough for Oxford? Such a pain in the ass to prep for.
Again I'll answer just for Europe/UK. Firstly on the HF question if you're asking if the program's quantitativeness matters my answer is like... Maybe? I think all of the top master's programs have some placements into HFs including LBS. I don't really think they care that much about what you studied and definitely not after a few years of work. Like even quant funds will basically just send you an assessment that none of your curriculum at any of them will cover and then it's up to you. My intuition is you'll probably have about an equal shot from any of them but I basically only recruited for IB so if I am wrong I am welcome to be corrected. Also given how few HF seats there are in Europe hiring is super random anyways. I don't know how beneficial it is to optimize for HF out of undergrad. I think it's smarter to look at your IB/ER odds since as far as I know (again not my wheelhouse) strong HF exits are pretty plausible from anywhere good in London. If you're married to quant then it's a different story but then you might be better off doing something more quanty like financial mathematics or whatever it's called.
On the GMAT question that's up to you. If you think you can score more and money/time isn't an issue why not. If I am not mistaken the MFE average is 705 so try to shoot for around that. But if it's some major issue it's a marginal gain so I wouldn't bother.
Again I'll answer just for Europe/UK. Firstly on the HF question if you're asking if the program's quantitativeness matters my answer is like... Maybe? I think all of the top master's programs have some placements into HFs including LBS. I don't really think they care that much about what you studied and definitely not after a few years of work. Like even quant funds will basically just send you an assessment that none of your curriculum at any of them will cover and then it's up to you. My intuition is you'll probably have about an equal shot from any of them but I basically only recruited for IB so if I am wrong I am welcome to be corrected. Also given how few HF seats there are in Europe hiring is super random anyways. I don't know how beneficial it is to optimize for HF out of undergrad. I think it's smarter to look at your IB/ER odds since as far as I know (again not my wheelhouse) strong HF exits are pretty plausible from anywhere good in London. If you're married to quant then it's a different story but then you might be better off doing something more quanty like financial mathematics or whatever it's called.
On the GMAT question that's up to you. If you think you can score more and money/time isn't an issue why not. If I am not mistaken the MFE average is 705 so try to shoot for around that. But if it's some major issue it's a marginal gain so I wouldn't bother.
Great gmat, good internships, solid chances for all your Mfin choices.
Oxford/Cambridge/LSE/LBS obviously top for London. Oxford/Cambridge are very academic though. LSE is solid for your profile, but the cohort is like 90% Asians, not sure if that helps your Europe career. LBS would be the best of all worlds, but most of the kids there are usually searching their first experience in IB, and you frequently find very mixed profiles/cohort. However the network is super strong.
HEC/Bocconi/St gallen/escp etc. can get you there too. The cohorts are more mature. They have experiences already like yourself but more so in regional offices/local boutiques. If you speak French/Italian /German it can be a good boost to your profile on top of these masters.
Esade/SSE/WHU etc. aren't so useful.
Don't know much about the US market to comment.
Oxford 1st, MIT 2nd
How come?
If your end goal is London MF PE, I'd probably prioritize Oxford, LSE, and LBS. Once you're at a top BB/EB, your deal experience will matter far more than which MFin you attended.
Cambridge MPhil Finance heavily underrated here, had top notch outcomes the last years
Lbs mfa is 400 something cohort. Used to be much more selective. The outcomes look less impressive as percentage of those entering top SAs, let alone PE funds. Oxford, Hec/escp and St gallen, Bocconi MiFs are all 100-200 class size. To my knowledge Cambridge is the smallest cohort.
This is just to say going to LBS MFA is not as big of a differentiator now as it used to be.
I've seen this kind of take a lot so I have to say I think WSO slightly overstates the effect of the larger cohort size. I didn't go to LBS but I have many friends who did and what they tell me is even though the MFA cohort is about 300 people now (not 400) the main effect of the larger cohort has just been A) the MiM placing worse because there are more MFA people to take the spots and B) some weaker profiles getting admitted and then not placing. Like people with no front office finance internships. Otherwise placements for strong people seem to still be quite good Neither of these two things should be relevant to you since you already have a good CV and you're not in the MiM. I would also point out that these other schools may have smaller master's cohorts but they often either have a large number of undergrad students you are competing with or large MIM cohorts (in the case of the French schools) that are often as competitive or more competitive than the finance cohorts and are also gunning for London IB. Maybe I'm wrong since I didn't experience it first hand but I wouldn't let the larger cohort size sway me that much. For example I would take LBS over any European school that's not HEC without even thinking about it.
Fair points. I agree the cohort size alone doesn't tell the whole story. My point wasn't that LBS suddenly became a bad program, just that it isn't the same differentiator it was 5 to 10 years ago.
Even if strong candidates still place well, increasing the class from 150 to 300+ inevitably dilutes the signal and makes the headline placement percentages less impressive. That's not necessarily because recruiting got worse, but because there are simply more people competing under the same brand. It's just an anecdote, however I've heard there's always a percentage of people with no finance experience in the LBS MFA. If recruiters consistently meet more students who are less prepared for FO recruiting, the LBS brand naturally becomes a slightly less automatic signal than it once was.
I also agree every school has internal competition (HEC/escp MiM, Bocconi undergrads, Oxford, etc.), so it's never a perfect comparison. I just think today LBS MFA is one of several top European options rather than the clear standout it used to be.
On the French MiMs, I can speak from experience since I graduated from a top 5 a few years ago. While the overall cohorts are often around 1,000 students, only a relatively small subset actually competes for IB. Finance specialisations are typically selective (CV, cover letter, academic ranking, etc.), so the pool genuinely targeting high finance is much closer to 10-20% of the class than the headline cohort size suggests.
If you want the 100% BEST program, it's LBS/Oxford - and don't look back!
Thanks! What’s your take on the large cohorte size at LBS?
WSO definitely tends to overexaggerate. I personally went LBS - MFA. We did not have anywhere close to this 400 figure, it was more like 250-280 (when i went 2 years ago). Almost everyone comes out of it with very good placements in IB, PE, etc.
---
Oxford MFE is on par with MIT MFin. While Ox has a stronger reputation and prestige, it's business school is relatively young and the alumni network is weaker. MIT has a better B-School but the university's reputation is slightly behind Oxford in commonwealth countries and developing world. But overall, those two programs are the best and others are not even close.
Consequatur velit eveniet iusto id porro. Quia rerum eos tenetur eos nobis odit. Laudantium quia quas perspiciatis minima. Aspernatur nulla illum temporibus pariatur quis accusamus et.
Aut sed aut totam ipsum consectetur quia ea. Qui eos veniam aliquid deserunt libero tempore ea. Ullam tenetur optio voluptas sed provident.
Ipsum adipisci quia et consectetur voluptates. Quis non qui adipisci harum est. Commodi quam voluptates libero sed eum illum. Atque est et porro excepturi. Modi voluptas aut quia at provident.
Qui quia sapiente nisi voluptas. Ea hic veniam et. Voluptate exercitationem expedita quasi perferendis veniam dolores.
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...