Buy-side versus sell side M&A experience

buyside.

When I say buyside, I'm not talking working at a PE firm. I'm talking about advising the buyer in a transaction.

buyside gets paid slightly more than sellside, typically

No, you typically want to be on the sell-side of an M&A deal. The buy-side M&A advisor typically gets paid less, and does less work. The only benefit of working on the buy-side is that you get to keep your client (assuming your client's CEO and CFO stay at their roles) which means more future work from that client.

Also read The Accidental Investment Banker by Jonathan Knee.

Buy-side you get to work with the financing of the deal, alot more modeling experience.

Sell-side... ehhh bunch of pitching.

For an analyst looking at PE exists, I have to think buy-side representation is slightly better. You get to participate in finding a good investment (rather than pitching your client as one, whether that's true or not), along with the typical duties (modeling, research, etc). In short, it's probably a greater learning experience.

The nice aspect to sell-side representation, though, is that you're building relationships with PE firms as potential buyers for your client (your vanilla deal will involve you looking for potential strategic AND financial buyers).

Based on the pros and cons above, a near 50/50 mix is best.

buyside for sure, most PE firms will look at your buyside experience. Plus modelling is really intense in buyside, I have just done a buyside deal, although I learnt alot but I really got killed along the way as well, very modelling intensive.

Sell-side is more valuable. You learn all the nitty gritty details of a company's financials and can really speak to the business. Ask someone to talk about a company they sold vs a company they advised on buying.