What’s Harder? MBB or EB/BB
Wanted to get your guys’ thoughts on what would be harder to land? An offer from MBB for MC or BB/EB for IBD? I know the numbers vary from firm to firm and especially considering product/coverage, but a general Co census would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for any input!
MBB > EB > BB in terms of difficulty.
Everyone here is retarded. You said nothing wrong. They just throw MS at everything
This is an IB forum and people are snowflakes
You're right. Unfortunately, this site is full of high schoolers since it's admission decision week, so you'll get MS no matter what you say
I actually agree. MBBs are way less forgiving in the interview process. Networking can go far in an interview for IB and can shape the interview in a lot of ways. For MBBs everything is extremely structured and the interviews are also just hard.
And for MBB you can’t look like you possess an extra chromosome, whereas for banking...
honestly, why do people even do consulting? They work similar hours as bankers and make less money all in. Exit opps are mediocre too with it being very hard to land PE gigs. Why do consulting at all?
Not everyone wants to do PE dumb ass. Hours aren't the same either - not only are they shorter but they're more predictable (i.e. light Friday - Sunday).
Comp is a bit less yes but you develop a totally different skill set from banking that is more advantageous for other career paths (startups, VC, F500 strategy, founding) than cranking away nonsense in Excel and setting up data rooms
As a former Consultant, can tell you my quality of life was 5x what it is now.
Sure in IB you get paid more and the road to PE is a lot more visible, but the ability to physically travel to your clients (i was in financial services, so often FIGs in major cities like Chicago, NYC, Boston, Houston) get all your meals paid (top restaurants in every city), rack up hotel and airline points is SEVERELY underrated.
Plus, most firms allow you to alternative travel on the weekend, where instead of flying back to your home city, you can go anywhere else you want domestically (some restrictions apply, but varies on firm).
For summer analyst, MBB is definitely harder, if only because there are far fewer roles (smaller analyst classes / fewer firms / SA isn't as much of a pipeline).
FT, I know significantly more people that were able to break into MBB via the FT process than GS/MS/JPM/PJT/EVR combined - but that might just be my school
this is the right answer from my school (target) as well
I mean this is comparing apples to oranges..
For banking the bulk of spots available in their talent pipeline are via their intern program and in MBB/tier 2 the bulk of spots available are via FT recruiting. Of course it's going to be easier to get through a recruiting process with more spots available vis-a-vis not.
Also, just structurally MBB is harder at the undergrad level. Most consulting firms have a diamond structure with the bulk of hires coming in through their MBA or advanced degree channels rather than undergrad. So at undergrad, most top consulting firms have very little relative headcount vs banks. Because of this structural difference, consulting firms virtually have to restrict themselves to core schools - whereas banks can afford to have a more diverse class. Even with sticking to core schools there are still probably more finance spots than consulting spots via OCR so competition (i.e. how well you stack at a target and your performance on cases) is rife.
I was successful in the recruiting process for both top BB IB (MS/GS) and MBB, so I have a fairly good understanding of both.
Wall Street Oasis is first and foremost a website for prospective in investment banking, so I'm sure people on this forum are biased towards IB. The reality is that consulting is a more competitive and challenging process (both in terms of lower acceptance rate, and more challenging interviews since you can't just memorize your way through it). Case interviews are obviously tough, but that's not all. Look up the McKinsey PEI -- your behavioral is literally one question you answer for 15 minutes, and the interviewer will grill every decision you make in your story. Banking technicals aren't trivial, but it's a matter of memorizing accounting statements and knowing some basic transactions. Not really a matter of intellectual rigor (not to say it's useless, just a very different process).
While I worked at an MBB, that is not because the role was "harder to land" in my eyes.. The work was broader and more interesting to me and I could still do financial modeling and PE deals as I wanted. I could also exit to PE if I chose. To be honest, MBB and top BB roles right out of school mean you'll have a good career ahead. A bit of extra money here and there doesn't really make a difference for your first job out of school. Also, for people graduating now, bonuses for many are about to be slashed, so banking doesn't really even make more than consulting for the next 2 graduating classes.
I saw someone asking what the point of consulting is if it pays less. First, the hours are substantially better -- they're done by 11pm at the very, very latest if you're on a tough case. All nighters are basically unheard of. Consulting does pay less than top IB roles, no question. However, MBB consultants get weekends off, much better and supportive culture, sponsored MBA's where they help us through the application process and pay for our preparation, first-class flights on just about every trip (at least at BCG), and literally the best healthcare I've ever seen. When we leave, we get "search time" which is a few months where we are paid our full salary do nothing but look for our exit opportunity, entirely stress free (at all 3 firms I believe).
I'm not saying that consulting is better than banking. That depends on the person. Consulting was a better choice for me, which is subjective, and a more competitive process than banking, which is objective.
I was successful in both, ended up doing EB (PJT / EVR) and now at a MF PE. I completely disagree. You're clearly biased - 95%+ of the consulting case studies and brainteasers can be prepared, wheras IB recruiting is much more of a black box and you cannot memorize the case studies.....
I think the difficulty of MBB/EB/BB is a function of each individuals relative strengths. Its difficult to claim one is harder than the other.
Disclaimer: can speak for Europe only.
IB and Consulting, for 90% of candidates, attract people with different interests / career perspectives, so it is quite difficult to decide which job is harder to land, but here are few considerations: 1. The few people I know who interviewed for both roles found consulting job easier to land (most of them went to consulting because they did not make it to banking). This can be due to the fact that in Europe you apply for consulting in your home country (FR/ITA/GER) and obv the competition is lower, while for IB, people tend to compete with peers from Europe/some US/Asia. 2. It is not necessarily true tho than consulting interview are always harder as stated above, at least in Europe, even if IB recruits from Spring weeks too (so no real interview) and certain BBs interview process is not technical at all (read it: ridiculous) 3. Consulting tends to attract a more diverse base of candidates, which means less need to run diversity recruiting process. To be clear. Consulting attracts, for 50 spots, 40 yellow, 20 orange, 20 black, 20 white. No real need for diverse recruiting. IB attracts for 50 spots 70 yellow, 10 orange, 5 black and 5 white. Need to run diverse recruiting and "pre-allocate" slots across the various colors, which make it more difficult.
Imo, it is extremely complex to generalize and say which process is more competitive/difficult, because it is quite firm specific and the candidate base is quite different.
Also idk if this is a UK only thing but the LinkedIn “incoming business analysts” are just fucking weird.
Like stop posting your almost totally useless motivational stories and telling people to “DM if you want me to send you my guide on how I got into McKinsey”... intentions might be good but it’s super cringy and comes off as egotistical
MBB is a lot harder
As a HYPSM graduate, I felt like MBB was way easier. I didn't have to network at all for MBB first rounds as opposed to other roles.
Also at HYPSM. MBB is much easier than EB or BB for students at top schools with a 3.7+ (3.5+ for STEM). You’re basically guaranteed an interview if you have a decent GPA at a good school. The MBB interviews themselves are also easier imo. There are few specific technical questions, meaning it’s easier to just BS the answers and cases.
EBs and BBs don’t screen for just school and GPA, so it’s much harder to get the initial interview. There are a ton of pet schools like Stern, Ross, UVA, and etc. so there’s more real competition for interview spots. IB interviews are also a lot more technical and “you either know it or you don’t” (financial statements, DCF, LBO).
If you don’t go to a target and/or have a low GPA, then yeah MBB is pretty damn hard.
I'm sorry, also at HYPSM and I'm creating an account just to reply to this. That's just not the case. If you have a 3.7+ at a target, yes you'll likely get the interview, but the application:offer ratio is below 3% at all of HYPSM.
And in terms of determining what's harder, getting an interview at an EB or BB might be tough, but the questions are definitely easier since you know precisely what to memorize. The interview itself at MBB tests actual intellectual capacity and critical thinking.
Tough to say. EB/BB recruiting is more of a several months long networking ironman with a long AF memorization test at the end while MBB is less networking and more about raw brain power for casing.
Higher stats cutoffs (GMAT, SAT, GPA) for MBB for MBA recruiting and I think in every program (target or not) has a way bigger pool of students gunning for MBB. The traveling lifestyle and better hours of MBB appeal to women much more and doubles the candidate pool vs EB/BB.
But the caveat IMO is more interest generated in MBB makes comp less competitive; bigger candidate pool means more new hires each year for MBB vs EB/BB and therefore easier to manage turnover.
Lower fees (long term seemingly never-ending engagements vs several fat M&A transactions fees every year) + higher headcount in MBB = lower comp.
MBB > EB > BB
MBB is harder. The pool of applicants vs the positions available is large since there are zero barriers to entry. People with any background or interests are considered. Once you're on the interview list, your performance on the interviews is the only thing that matters. These already hard interviews get harder at the decision round with partners who go "off script."
Anecdotally, EB is considered more competitive with fewer spots than BB. EB wins cross offers against BB. Of course some people are fully set on GS/MS.
One area where IB is harder in general is the networking. It is much more important and there are many more firms, all of which care about how many touch points you have with them. MBB only requires you to attend a few events and make a couple of connections at most. Some people did not network at all and still got interviews.
Girlfriend is at BCG, I'm at a BB, both from the same top target - this is straight up foolish, even from the people above who claim to have recruited for both.
Why? They're completely different processes. My girlfriend admits she would get crushed in a banking interview, and I admit it would take a while before casing felt natural to me for MBB. We both know we're smart and if given enough time could probably be successful at interviewing for the other.
Other quick point: MBB year 1 all-in (signing/relocation included) won't crack $120K. If you're an average BB analyst you're pulling in at least $30K more, and it only scales up more for year 2 (forget EB/top performer BB comp). Can't dispute the consulting perks that some have laid out, but I've heard with WFH hours have NOT been less.