GS vs UMM PE
Fortunate to choose between Goldman Coverage in NY and an analyst program at ~10 Bn AUM PE firm. Having a hard time deciding and would love to hear all of your thoughts.
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +134 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 36 | 4h |
| +109 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 51 | 4h |
| +99 | Woman who emptied Knicks trashcan on street then stole it was DEI exec, worked at JPMorgan Chase | 25 | 1h |
| +81 | Stop sleeping on UBS - it’s pretty good | 29 | 8m |
| +54 | 2026 VAULT PRESTIGE RANKINGS | 30 | 1h |
| +39 | AI + Financial Modelling | 12 | 1d |
| +31 | Hardest interview experiences? | 16 | 1d |
| +28 | Summer before college | 17 | 19h |
| +26 | Current State of UBS in North America | 8 | 2d |
| +23 | Cold apply for FT recruiting? | 5 | 3d |
Career Resources
Do you want to do PE or banking long term? Would you see yourself long term at either firm?
id pick the PE fund if you want to do PE. Banking job security is also not great. Obviously GS won’t shut any doors if you decide to go that way
Thank you! I want to do PE long term and could see myself staying at the PE firm. Only concerns are lack of name recognition if I want to leave and the time I'd need to stay. I feel I'd have to stay at least 4 years which feels like a lot out of undergrad. Would leave for PE after 2 years at GS and most likely be able to exit to a similar caliber firm.
“I want to go into PE, should I do PE or IB?”
Only on wso 😂😂
Haha fair enough. I'm sure it seems like a no-brainer, but frankly this process is so early that it's impossible for me to say with certainty that I want to be in PE as a sophomore in college - GS obviously has more optionality for exits. I’d still have roughly the same long-term career trajectory if I did 2 years at GS or 2 years in a PE analyst program. It's really a question of is it worth missing out on the IB learning experience to start earlier in PE.
If you’re uncertain about PE and might want to be a career banker, or go into corp dev. or another facet of “front-office finance,” then perhaps take GS. You’re right about the name brand and exits.
But if you want PE, take PE. Going from UMM PE to the most prestigious PE firms is probably easiest than going from IB to the most prestigious PE firms.
This for ft?
SA
Depends on group. I’d take TMT or FIG but other than that, go to the PE shop
Why FIG?
I had a friend go through something similar. Chose between GS/MS/JPM and $10 Bn AUM PE. Ended up choosing the PE route because that was their end goal anyways. I think there is a lot to be said for doing something you are actually interested in. Not sure of the specifics at your firm, but for my friend their fund gives massive junior comp and likes to promote within, so the choice was made easier by that as well.
.
If the PE offer is for NYC and you want to be there, I'd take it. But if the PE offer is for elsewhere and u wanna be in NYC, I'd just go with GS. Unless you don’t care about location, then just forget what I said
I’d actually disagree. Check how your fund is regarding as far as an analyst training ground. I know funds with such strong anti-PE analyst bias that they wouldn’t hire from ares/bx/kkr (Mine included). I also have friends in MFPE analyst programs that got skipped over in oncycle.
Obviously it’s very case dependent. Just food for thought. There’s a strong chance that going to GS will make you a stronger investor in the long run and build a resume with a wider reach / appeal.
Which funds have this bias
It is probably those without a PE analyst program. Funds with a PE analyst program will likely have a bias towards MF/UMM analysts while those w/o an analyst program will probably have a bias against. The fund I work for has an analyst program and one of our top candidates in the process last cycle (off cycle) was from one of the 3 funds you listed (ares/bx/kkr) but they ended up going to a HF. There are very few MF/UMM analysts and a vast majority of them either go onto HFs or stay on at their existing firm. But the very few that look to switch funds have a very easy time doing so. Also MFPE analysts do not recruit on cycle. On cycle is a crapshoot, why on earth would one go through that process just to move from one top fund to another.
Take UMM. Plenty of analysts - even from the top groups out there - strike out on cycle or fail to convert for whatever reason.
I’ve written similar posts in the past but relying on on cycle, even if you’re at GSTMT and have a 4.0 from Wharton, is never a guarantee.
Maybe you get unlucky and the CPI person you talk to happens to be in a bad mood during your intro call and they give you a bad internal rating (which means they won’t show you to UMM/MFs).
Maybe you have a brutal staffing and can’t prep enough for on cycle, or you happen to have a pitch the next day when recruiting kicks off and you aren’t able to go to interviews the first night.
Maybe you spend the 4 hours interviewing at KKR but make a mistake in the excel test at 2am because you’re stressed and exhausted and by the time they’ve rejected you every other MF has filled their class.
Maybe you do everything right but there just isn’t enough seats at your dream fund and they go with the nepotism hire at the end of the day.
My point is, on cycle is a complete mess and the smallest things can make or break someone getting a top PE offer. I know plenty of phenomenal candidates from great banks who ended up in MMPE (not a bad thing!) or had to either do on cycle the next year or scramble off cycle.
If you have a guaranteed entry to an UMM fund - absolutely take it
Thank you for the help! I ended up following your advice and hope it works out for the best!
Unde sed quaerat quaerat natus et dolor. Esse at qui rerum nisi.
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...