Evercore vs CVP London
For some background , I am an Oxbridge student with limited prior experience, but have managed to secure offers for both of their 2026 summer intern programmes.
Obviously CVP pays a bit more but at the junior level this is not my primary aim from IBD.
I don’t really care about what sector I work in but maybe some insight into the teams at both firms would be useful (aware that CVP is generalist programme).
Does anyone have an idea which offer I should take given exits, pay, junior experience and career opportunities and whatever one should consider when taking a role.
Conversion across both firms is around 80% so this is not something I’m considering as a differentiator.
One thing I’m worried about is people’s perception of CVP / EVR NY clouding their judgement of their respective London offices so please let me know what you think based on EU reputation/ deal flow and experience.
Would personally take CVP - greater pay and some ‘strategic’ work that rounds out your skill profile.
Both weaker relative to their NY teams, although believe both work cross-atlantic with their NY teams (can confirm EVR does).
Evercore still does a lot of MM deals in Europe, would place them below the US BBs based on dealflow and average deal value. CVP is definitely better for being a career banker as the culture there is to train juniors to become one, whereas the vast majority of SMD/MDs at Evercore come from BBs.
On the whole, would take CVP as its stronger in EMEA and offers better training potential for juniors.
Is this true for EVR RX LDN as well? The cross-atlantic work?
I would go with cvp
Could you also share what the interview process was like?
I was in it at the start
It was networking event > f2f interview > AC.
I didn't get past the networking event so can't provide too much colour.
I'm curious if they do any grad hiring.
yes process for grad hiring is still on
Sorry, wdym you didn’t get past the networking event? How did you get the offer then?
PJT, CVP, Laz and Roths are the only true "Elite" boutiques in EMEA. Laz and Roths on the basis of a consistent top 10 league table placement (Can't remember the last time atleast one of these guys has not been in the top 10), PJT on the basis of an extremely strong RX platform with fantastic exits, CVP on the basis of an extremely strong Large-Cap platform (Highest average deal value in 2025, only EB Other than Laz and Roths in the top 10). CVP's exits are also weirdly quite strong, considering the inherent long-term banker bias and their non-existent sponsor mandate pipeline.
Honestly, looking back at things, I think I still made the right decision by going to a US BB but if i had a crystal ball 6 years ago i potentially would have reneged for either CVP or PJT. You might consider other banks to be "Elite" due to comp - if anyone in this industry tells you of outsized pay outcomes and they are not a CVP or PJT employee, they are lying. Actually, i don't have any data points on Q or Zaoui etc, but for what this forum considers to be "Elite" (Excluding PJT and CVP) I can tell you that this is eliteness only in superimposed / borrowed prestige from their peers across the Atlantic.
I will give one thing to EVR though, their exits are increasingly improving, I see them on a lot of sponsor stuff and they are aggressively investing in growth. Probably a contender in 5 years once they finally take market share from the incumbents that follow the most similar biz model (Laz / Roths). Unlikely to catch up to PJT in RX, or CVP in large cap mandates (Unless the RW Partners don't leave like they obviously will soon enough - see George Osborne).
You are broadly right, but the distinction is really about model rather than league table placement. Lazard, Rothschild, Arma, Houlihan, WB, etc. in EMEA are fundamentally flow shops. Heavy MM sell-side focus, high volume and constant execution, with occasional large-cap complexity, often alongside co-advisors when doing larger executions. The upside is reps and closures. The downside is that most of the work is fairly standard MM.
The US EBs in EMEA skew more towards UMM and large-cap strategic advisory. Fewer mandates, higher fees, more coverage and pitching, and meaningfully lower deal count. When it works, the deals can be very high quality, but there is also the risk of long stretches with limited execution due to mandate scarcity and competition with BBs.
As a result, the experience can be very different. Flow shops almost guarantee multiple sell-sides early on and 5+ closed deals by associate, potentially 7-10 if you are lucky. US boutiques can give exposure to very large, interesting transactions, but you may close very few deals depending on timing and staffing especially in a slower market.
That said, I have seen a CV from a senior analyst from one of the US EBs who worked on four closed deals north of $5bn. Assuming that was accurate, that is clearly an outlier rather than the norm. There are simply not many of these mandates in Europe, EBs compete heavily with BBs for them, and even if they win, you still need to be the one staffed on the deal and keen not to see the daylight for 6 to 12 months.
Not saying either is a slam dunk against the other - these are just different.
Hope this helps.
PS - as a disclaimer - the above is a bit outdated and some of these would have changed, but I think that the broader categories (flow businesses vs US EBs) are still correct.
Thanks. How does this square with how banks rank in EMEA for exits/pay/being a career banker from an analyst's POV?
george osborne wasnt pulling any of the major deals anyways. evr is top 3 EB in UK and europe now. no debate. check the league tables
Second this. What people often miss is that many Evercore London teams share P&L with NY, so London analysts work on large US deals, not just European flow. That NY integration is a big reason why exits out of London are so strong
What are your views on London RX groups? Specifically EVR vs. HL vs. Roth vs. Jef vs. Moelis? Interested as an Associate-lateral coming from the U.S. potentially.
Why would you need to rank these two banks ? Both are great in EMEA, both are a great brand name, both pay well, and both are as prestigious as the other
They are both great firms and well set up in Europe but the difference in feel is huge.
EVR is much larger and more institutionalized and essentially feels like a BB in experience although you get more volume, less large cap work and higher pay.
CVP still has an old school boutique feel in London. More ties to senior bankerz, smaller deal teams, flow can be a bit more variable but the clients and individuals are quality.
I know I’d prefer CVP but they are both great choices and someone who can wants something more structured will take EVR. Just don’t assume they have any real similarities other than paying more than BBs (it’s really criminal what BBs pay these days)
Not sure how much visibility you have on Junior Comp but can confirm from multiple data points that Laz, EVR, Roths pay is on par with BBs and even less than BAML. In my eyes, that is criminal considering one of the carrots dangled to juniors to compensate for the lagging EMEA brand is the comp delta...
I run a global team for one or their competitors out of the US but we have a lot of juniors in London so I get the London comp benchmarking from a HR consultant we have on retainer, and at least they say there is a 15% difference or so at EVR and CVP. It’s possible they are wrong since I don’t have first hand data beyond what the consultants advises us. Comp at Laz and Roths is weak.
I’m biased since I’m at Evercore, but I’d push back on the BB comparison. EVR feels very different from BB, sector teams are typically 10–20 people including MDs, versus BB sector teams that are often 30–70+. There is much higher junior visibility, earlier responsibility, and closer interaction with seniors, which is a big part of the experience
iirc CVP were involved in the CS / UBS takeover for CS's side (based on Thijane Thiam's book)
Do they have a reasonably sized FIG practice in EMEA by any chance or was that just a one off?
Havent seen them in my 2 years, unlike evercore who is on a lot of deals.
I would assume Evercore focuses on AM / WM / insurance firms as opposed to banks, no?
"money is not my aim" -> stop lying. you are in finance.
here is the real trade-off in london:
cvp: it is a cult. they pay you so much that leaving for pe implies a massive pay cut. the model is designed to keep you a banker forever. generalist pool is great for learning, terrible for sanity.
evr: it is a pe exit factory. structured teams, massive deal flow, standard path to the buyside.
if you want to be a career banker and buy a porsche at 24, take cvp.
if you want to exit to pe and run the world later, take evr.
pick your poison
Qui nihil minus possimus iusto. Rerum aspernatur quo nisi perspiciatis nam fuga. Vel cumque voluptatibus nemo recusandae. Id ullam quidem modi qui impedit. Sed et rem accusantium aut dolorem.
Fuga recusandae sed officiis architecto harum repellendus. Magni beatae deserunt illum consequatur rerum similique nostrum. Repellat sed ab qui et. Tenetur reprehenderit quaerat similique amet iusto fuga. Quas fugiat libero molestiae totam sapiente. Delectus ipsum voluptatem iste tenetur cupiditate expedita incidunt. Nostrum velit quia animi magnam natus explicabo assumenda.
Beatae alias quis reiciendis consectetur possimus accusamus. Aut ut quasi aut delectus. Est id asperiores eaque mollitia eligendi. Et ut laborum in est. Porro explicabo maxime possimus veritatis nihil. Omnis sunt qui dignissimos totam. Qui fugit sunt quisquam qui.
Ut quam sapiente quo doloribus est dolores tenetur. Cum dolor blanditiis quia et est quae.
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...
Adipisci debitis doloremque dolorem autem ipsa minus. Libero praesentium veritatis voluptatum accusantium voluptate. Autem deleniti culpa mollitia omnis. Laboriosam maxime sunt modi pariatur. Qui mollitia autem nam libero dolore sit placeat. Rerum fuga earum fugit dicta impedit.
Nesciunt et autem cupiditate quo eius. Doloremque nam aliquam non et aut qui impedit. Eius repellat debitis repellat voluptates exercitationem nihil magnam. Voluptas tenetur quis occaecati assumenda molestiae facilis.
Rem ea porro voluptates consectetur aut odit officiis. Molestiae recusandae atque corrupti voluptates vero non ex. Enim sed dolor culpa expedita recusandae sint. Harum eum soluta placeat debitis. Sint excepturi qui rerum et rerum placeat quos ipsa.
Doloremque quod sapiente enim consequatur magni. Maxime sit consequuntur natus id numquam. Repellat odit optio est earum. Pariatur sunt rerum sunt sed.