I have an offer from both companies but idk who to go for? Heart says Citi has they seem to have a stronger balance sheet so more likely to be lead underwriter in deals and better work for me. but idk?
| +230 | UBS Layoffs (October 2026) | 68 | 32m |
| +109 | Do people still want to go PE? | 34 | 2h |
| +62 | Bloomberg - New UBS Investment Bankers See Smaller Pay Gain on Promotion | 15 | 13h |
| +46 | Think I'm fucking up my analyst years | 16 | 3d |
| +36 | What Differentiates the Best Analysts as AI Improves? | 10 | 4h |
| +34 | UBS Tech layoff | 16 | 56m |
| +33 | Lazard hirevue | 11 | 14h |
| +26 | Ambitious CC Student trying to break into IB | 13 | 5d |
| +22 | Cornell Club T10 Rankings (UPDATED 10/2026) | 14 | 1d |
| +19 | Quitting After First 4 months | 9 | 5m |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Even tho I’m a huge fun of GS, I’d probably go with Citi for capital markets. Strong balancesheet gives it a competitive edge against GS. Culture is better as well. An important thing is that you will see Citi having an important role on the deals as well, whereas GS is there just to be there. Finally, I just wanna point out that all Citi CM teams are always ranked top (true for GS too).
You can’t really go wrong with either, but I feel like the experience would be better at Citi
GS beats Citi in both ECM & DCM league tables in deal count and volume.
dude... Just google the list of top IPOs over the last two years and look at who was on the left. It's almost entirely GS/MS/JPM
GS has more lead-left roles. This is particularly relevant in terms of executing the deal. Citi is generally an active joint bookrunner, better than a passive bookrunner. However, they don’t “lead.” This is also reflected in the fees they get on a transaction; you can look at the S1 filings of IPOs / FOs where both participated. Bottom line, more exciting to lead the deal. Go for GS.
This shouldn't be much a debate in my opinion
GS simply the better platform, particularly with strategic products (ECM, LevFin and M&A)
Noting you pointed out balance sheet, assume you're looking at DCM / LevFin. Personally not familiar with either platform but exit ops (external and internal) far better from GS
Just my 2 cents
Agree. However, note that balance sheet is actually very relevant for ECM as well.
On the topic at hand (Citi vs GS), Citi has more risk tolerance and finance more aggressively, which leads to building stronger client relationships and position themselves for participating on higher fee generating transactions including ECM. However, GS is better positioned for executing the actual ECM transactions and doesn’t rely that much on financing tu cultivate ECM mandates.
lol, Citi does not have more risk tolerance. Maybe pre-crisis.
GS has a $1.5tn balance sheet and lends pretty aggressively for strategic clients. Even if the above was true, how many major IPOs can you name where GS was to the right of Citi... ? Just makes it worse imo if you lend aggressively and still consistently lose.
Balance sheet shouldn't even really be a consideration here
If presented with both options go GS.. I bet even most Citi Cap Markets bankers would agree
I meant that Citi lends to participate on IPOs (vs. lead) that's where lending becomes critical for Citi. Major IPOs are led by GS/MS/JPM. Citi only fills as a Tier 2 bank, that’s where lending gives them an edge vs other lenders ex-leads.
Dignissimos cupiditate consequatur aperiam sint voluptatem libero. Quo esse est asperiores vitae corporis. Labore nemo alias iste nihil assumenda quidem eveniet voluptatem. Aut corporis voluptatum earum est voluptatibus.
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...