Why is M&A better than Coverage?

Cant tell if this is a troll or not. 

M&A is more meaningful experience. Debt and equity are good to do like once. You aren’t doing the really meaningful piece of cap markets deals in coverage, LevFin/ECM/DCM are. 

It's the "best" in that it positions you the best for PE recruiting, since buying companies is what you would be doing as a PE Associate. If a coverage group is more in line with the experience that you are looking for, then go for that bro. Just because most on this forum want to go the PE route doesn't mean you have to make your decisions based on their preferences. 

Depends if you're exiting as an analyst or staying in banking.  Good coverage MDs tend to make more than anyone else in terms of seniors.  Because if you don't pay them, they will leave and take their relationships with them.

Another reason you might choose M&A over coverage is that M&A groups usually "hold the model". They do the majority of the excel work and because of this are generally more technically sound

M&A generates higher fees as percentage of transaction

M&A > coverage 

always

People think sending around diligence trackers and scheduling calls all day is exciting for some reason. 

This is such a second derivative age old question. People who feel strongly about M&A due to technical aspects of it are def barking up the wrong tree. There's some inferiority complex of actually having never been an engineer but still wanting to be "technical" and "quantitative" like them.

Hard to describe but it is what it is. You'll be running a billion "what - if" scenarios in your model till the cows come home just to have none of them actually matter.

Just call it what it is, all analysts are glorified slide producers and number crunchers. The models are pre-made, the slides are pre-populated with templates.