RBC vs DB
I am wondering if I should choose RBC NYC or DB NYC. Both are generalists. I am not sure on if I want to do IB in the longer run, but also not 100% set on the buy side as I haven't even done the IB job yet. How should I evaluate the two firms relative to each other? From my understanding of this forum, DB has historically been considered a BB but post-financial crisis has fallen whilst RBC hasn't ever really been considered a BB but has grown consistently over the years. I understand historically DB is stronger reputational and historical exits for top groups are stronger, but am wondering if that remains the case in 2025 and do you believe that will continue to be the case by the time I would start FT in 2027.
If you’re not sure about IB long-term or the buy side, the best move is to pick the bank that gives you the strongest foundation and the most options later, and that remains DB.
From an exit perspective, recruiting is heavily inertia-driven—headhunters and buy-side firms stick to the same target firms they’ve always recruited from. While RBC has improved in recent years, DB still benefits from its historical brand, deep alumni network, and the fact that it remains classified as a BB in recruiting circles. Headhunters and funds simply don’t have an incentive to change their target lists when there’s always enough talent coming from traditional BB/EB pipelines. The reality is, that DB analysts still place into more MF/UMM PE and PC seats at a much higher rate than RBC, and that’s unlikely to change short-term.
From a work product and execution perspective, my personal experience working across both banks has led me to see a clear difference. RBC often wins deals based on lending relationships rather than execution strength. I’ve been on deals where DB contributes meaningful work, while RBC’s involvement tends to be more passive, driven primarily by its balance sheet rather than deal execution capabilities. That’s not to say RBC doesn’t have strong teams, but if you’re looking to build technical expertise and refine your skill set, DB is the stronger choice from my experience in banking.
At the end of the day, IB is about building a career foundation that ensures strong earnings and career flexibility no matter what path you take. The soft skills, network, and experience you gain from working on high-level transactions will benefit you for life. If you’re weighing DB vs. RBC, DB gives you the better platform to maximize your options and set yourself up for the strongest trajectory in finance but both banks will set you well for any future career plans!
Got it, thanks so much really appreciate the longer-term view as to how to evaluate the two banks. I would love to get some junior perspectives on the state of exits at either bank perhaps from someone who works at either of the banks right now.
You can look yourself on linkedin just sort by previous employer, just choose DB
Agreed DB wins a lot with financing as well
Neither will do a lot of M&A, mostly pitching
Agree 100% with this. I’d also say how do you mesh with the people on the team - seniors and juniors? You’ll be spending a lot of time with them so this is important for your own sanity and quality of learning
This has to depend on group because I haven't seen DB advise on any of the last 20 M&A deals in my sector. They're actually much more aggressive on financing than we can ever get and they win lead roles in ancillary like securitizations. Definitely have a stronger legacy brand and I imagine that confers benefits in recruiting but I'm at the D level so not exactly in the thick of things thereof.
Curious what sector
This could definitely vary based on the niche each firm covers, as bank rankings differ significantly across specific sectors. Would love to know what sector in specific as well just to get a better sense. On the recruiting front, ideally, a junior from either firm could provide firsthand insights, but would conjecture based on historical reputation that DB likely recruits better simply due to long-standing brand recognition and alumni placement.
One major differentiator is LevFin and Sponsors, where DB is significantly stronger than RBC despite RBC having a larger balance sheet. This suggests that DB’s senior bankers are more experienced in structuring and executing complex deals, which can be a major advantage for analysts looking to build a strong technical foundation. Getting exposure to large, lead-left transactions is valuable not just for skill development but also for laterals and buy-side recruiting, as it provides analysts with a broader and more sophisticated deal sheet. Given that M&A exposure is relatively comparable in traditional banking groups (excluding more specialized teams like PU&I or Energy), the stronger LevFin platform and historical reputation at DB imo gives it the edge overall, especially for analysts looking to maximize the deal experience and recruiting outcomes.
DB still has the stronger global brand and historically better exits, but its reputation took a hit after the financial crisis. RBC has been growing steadily and is a strong player in North America. If you’re unsure about IB long-term or the buy side, focus more on culture, deal flow, and where you think you’ll have the best experience. DB probably still has the edge for exits if things remain stable, but RBC might offer a better work environment and job security. Go where you think you’ll thrive.
I work at RBC... Got to DB
Only right answer. don’t think this is much of a debate
Why
Eaque qui aut eum impedit iste quae architecto. Quis asperiores eum magnam recusandae a tenetur. Non recusandae in quaerat beatae.
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...