Citi vs CS vs Barclays for IB
What are your opinions on these banks? I'm trying to get a general consensus on what would be best in terms of PE placements, especially MF PE.
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +405 | Evercore Intern Seizure | 62 | 6h |
| +113 | UBS IB Americas has failed, now behind Santander and Stiffel | 31 | 44m |
| +79 | JPM M&A is Gone??? Purely Coverage Banking??? | 44 | 2m |
| +60 | How do I understand vs. just memorizing? | 11 | 10h |
| +48 | Losing my personality in Banking | 9 | 2d |
| +45 | The good and bad with Wells Fargo | 14 | 1h |
| +42 | Associate & Above IB exits | 18 | 11h |
| +41 | Sent my Claude prompt to 200+ Teams chat. MD wants to see me Monday. | 23 | 1h |
| +33 | Incoming IB Analyst: Best Ways to Prepare? | 13 | 8h |
| +33 | Some banks are overrated as fuck | 10 | 5h |
Career Resources
doesn't matter that much tbh - at the end of the day, it depends on your own intellectual abilities. The reason why you see more GS analysts exiting into UMF is because the pool of analysts are ‘generally’ top-notch candidates to begin with and they tend to work on more mega/cross-border deals which looks good on resume. Of course, there are solid candidates across all other banks as well (as you know IB recruiting depends on a lot on luck as well). If you are a top-tier analyst in UBS/DB, you will have no prob exiting into UMF too. CS, Citi, Barclays are all pretty well-regarded. I would lean slightly towards Barclays because (1) M&A is done within the coverage group so you get a more well-rounded experience (2) one of the best culture/working hours in general (i can't underscore enough how important this is). You should also consider deal flow activities within each group/bank
Out of these firms I would also lean toward Barclays coverage if the goal is PE. I work in PE, and out of all of the bulge brackets, kids from Barclays seem to have the best attitudes and ability to hit the ground running. As for actually recruiting for PE, all of these banks give you a shot.
all 3 are struggling more than other BBs but select groups at CS like tech are doing well. it’s group dependent a lot of times
if talking about NYC, Barclays is the easy choice here with Citi coming very close behind. Credit Suisse would be great but only a couple of groups are really strong.
CS M&A, Industrials, Lev Fin, TMT and Sponsors are all really strong
A few years ago I would have said CS > Citi = Barclays, now and for the foreseeable future its Barclays > Citi > CS for PE. Even so, they are all still very comparable for buyside exits. Barclays has the advantage of good culture, friendly recruiting for PE, and in-house modeling. CS has the advantage of really strong product groups. Citi has the advantage of being american and well-capitalized. Not an "obvious" choice, but my gut says Barclays just from knowing how analysts across the street have placed and talked about their recruiting experiences.
lmao I dont think you know how it works. The headhunters ask the current associates at places like Carlyle, Apollo, etc. how their former groups perform and if they would recommend them. Then the headhunters will specifically reach out to those groups- and most of the time it is GS/MS/JPM. Obviously you are not disqualified coming from UBS, but I doubt there will be many headhunters reaching out to you
Incoming analyst — I don’t think you get how it works.
1) Headhunters just want to get paid, it’s their job to reach out to as many people as possible. I promise you they reach out to UBS analysts lol
2) All they care about is whether or not you’ll get an offer. If you are a crappy analyst at MS (yes, believe it or not, they exist), you will get beat out by a kid from a no-name boutique (crazy, I know)
3) Did you known over the past several years, GS hasn’t been in the top 3 placing banks during PE on-cycle recruiting? Before you have a little WSO heart attack, take a breath. Think about bank culture and recruiting. Goldman has been notoriously harsh when it comes to PE recruiting. That makes it much more difficult for those analysts to place than a solid analyst from a low tier bank who has support recruiting. Headhunters are hyper aware of this.
I interviewed at multiple mega funds and had numerous interviewers who came from lower-tier banks (according to wso). NOBODY CARES. Be better than those around you and you’ll get an offer.
I acknowledge that a better name, or a better group at a certain bank, will do nothing but help you. But don’t for a second believe that they’ll lower the bar for you because you’re in PJT RX. At most they’ll feel safer assuming you know your shit. But the second they feel you don’t know it better than the Citi kid, you’re out.
Source: I’ve been through the process and know a few headhunters personally.
For reference, I know CS does in-house M&A across 4 of their coverage group. Also, historically, CS LevFin, Sponsors, and M&A ALWAYS place extremely well. I have heard BarCap has a great culture though.
Barclays is going to be your best bet for culture out of the "mid-tier" BBs of CS/Baml/Citi/Barclays. Out of these 4, BAML/Barclays will also have the best MF PE placement on average. If you can land CS sponsors or Citi M&A I would take those opportunities as well.
Lmao I would love to know how you somehow determined that Barclays categorically has the best “culture” (whatever that means to you) of all of those banks. And further, how you were able to decipher exactly which banks place the best into MF PE, “on average.” All of that knowledge from an internship with one firm! Remarkable!