UBS or TD SA
Have offer/spd for SA from both - would appreciate any input. TD is generalist, so I would have to place into tech group (assuming that's the only group that should be taken over any UBS group).
Trending Content - Job Search Advice Forum
Career Resources
Deal flow equally as weak. UBS has better prestige and legacy brand name. TD has more comp and less hours worked.
Would placing into one of LevFin/FSG/Industrials be the most ideal option to keep as many doors open as possible in terms of exits if I choose UBS?
Yes, those are the top 3 groups. Honestly, I would first think about how much you want to exit, what your interested in, who you enjoy interacting with, etc. first as well. Think WSO prestige chasing is kind of insane; you are going to be working in this field/coverage group for 2 years with these people, so you should at least evaluate factors outside of prestige optimization. HC and CR are also fine at UBS, though HC is too sweaty given their relative flow IMO.
Note: even though they are fine for UBS, for TD, they would be viewed as elite groups/the best ones in the TD context; that's just how big the difference is between firms. TD has like 1bn of M&A in the US so far YTD, and UBS is over 30x of M&A transactions volume to TD for YTD and also multiples in LTM, just not comparable to any extent. A singular CR deal this year by UBS (Celsius - Alani Nu where UBS was the sole and lead financial advisor) has a higher EV value than all of TD M&A volume for YTD. I am not a UBS fan, but TD is just not a great franchise.
Were you in TD's div program?
Bump
Nah it’s non-div target
Would take TD by a mile, UBS is a mess
UBS is higher in the LTM, YTD, and every other reasonable time-period M&A league table to look at in the US alongside higher in prestige/reputation. This might be the most obvious choice among these UBS vs threads. There's no real argument for TD outside you absolutely MUST do tech and have no intention of lateraling ever and want to stay in banking at a singular firm forever, then maybe TD because the UBS tech team is notoriously bad. Still, even then the reputation and overall deal flow of the franchise would lean towards picking UBS.
By the time you join post internship and start full time I’m confident TD bank will be in a better place
TD is not a big M&A player, it's not really comparable to UBS in flow. Flow and prestige: UBS walks TD in the US. I was the dude calling for considering WF over UBS, but I don't see a single reason to pick TD over UBS; it's not even like TD is a particularly strong growth franchise, they have been stuck in that 20-30 range for a while now even post-merger and recently got hit with a huge fine for their IB division. We have gone too far into the UBS hate train, to where people are willingly misleading incoming people; I agree UBS isn't what it was pitched to juniors as regarding culture, and some teams are absurdly toxic (tech for example or FIG), but I think any reasonable person would choose UBS over TD.
I disagree and have friends at both. Everyone way happier and feels like they contribute more at TD. Will work on similar items either way. League tables misleading because sponsors sometimes just throw UBS on the buy side for lending terms with little to no meaningful work for for juniors.
No offense, but you are too far up the UBS hate train to be saved so you are not seeing things clearly. I understand that your probably in one of the really toxic teams and it must suck to work there, but let's not mislead people. You have commented on multiple posts of mine, and I am sure you are aware I largely have a negative opinion of UBS.
As mentioned in the above comment, TD is just not a strong M&A franchise; it's been nearly 2 years since the Cowen merger, and nothing has changed. It simply doesn't do any deals outside of LMM/MM M&A on the M&A side of things, it's lending is fine but nothing elite or good. It's just not a good IBD franchise in the US yet.
On the note of buyside credits for lending: that's how buyside credits for full-service banks work. Generally, if you see a firm cited as a buyside financial advisor, it's often an M&A tip for relationships. The only one representing the buyside that do anything resembling advisory work is the lead financial advisor, and even then it's going to be less than the sellside one and is more so around giving bidder market color + doing a lot of the bitch work.
Look, I largely agree with your complaints about UBS, but let's not mislead people. Whatever you think of UBS flow, all the data and anecdotes from other seniors who have moved downmarket to firms (including TD) point to TD just simply being a bad not non-competitive US franchise. At least UBS has some competitive groups; TD has none.
You can never go too far into the UBS hate train
No need to mislead prospects; they have done nothing wrong in this process.
When you say you'd consider WF over UBS, would this also extend when considering PE exits?
I have commented extensively on this see here for full thoughts. Generally, no, am speaking to people interested in longer banking careers. :
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/investment-banking/wf-or-ubs-for-sa-2026
If you’re a girl, take TD
why
Architecto eligendi excepturi et voluptatum facilis. Unde ab ut sunt dolorem. Quo in perferendis voluptatem. Omnis error eligendi velit minima.
Ut non est vel voluptates eum praesentium dolorem. Atque aut neque minus. Minus occaecati veritatis ut sunt et fugit ut.
Nulla temporibus quo sit aspernatur est esse dolorum. Qui recusandae quas quisquam qui provident. Molestiae nemo et dolor voluptas. Facere dignissimos animi velit autem. Sequi velit officiis eum quia veniam. Autem qui consequatur odio quis perferendis dolores. Facere voluptas omnis incidunt maxime et.
Et perspiciatis in voluptatem fugit. Quam nisi exercitationem ea ut quo.
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...