2025 Megafund PE Anti-Rankings: Pros and Cons of PE’s most coveted MF / UMM roles
Inspired by recent posts of college students and newly hired analysts obsessing over Megafund private equity firms, I wanted to outline a high-level breakdown of MF PE. While every firm listed here is a dream outcome, MF PE is not a one-size-fits-all label. The types of deals, culture, people, and history of these firms can vary drastically. I purposefully chose not to rank these firms, and I even went out of my way to list them alphabetically within subcategories to avoid endless debates.
Source: Former MF associate, with peers from nearly all the firms listed here. If anyone currently works at one of the firms listed and wants to provide their insights, it would be even better to get accurate contemporary depictions. Not going to mention WLB or the sweatiness of each MF, although others are welcome to share their experiences on a firm to firm basis.
—----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legacy Megafunds:
Apollo, Blackstone, KKR, TPG
Pros: The most well-known, storied franchises within private equity. As an associate, you’ll be learning from seniors who were the original innovators of the private equity industry. 2 years of IB plus an associate stint at one of these four firms is seen by many as the ideal launch pad for a career in finance. Because of how long they’ve operated, it’s safe to say these firms will offer the very best opportunities for hedge funds, lateraling to other PE firms, or leveraging the brand name for endeavors outside of PE or HFs.
Cons: With the exception of Apollo, upward mobility is somewhat nonexistent among these firms. Also, these firms have become massive capital aggregators across various strategies, and thus core PE isn’t seen as a growth area for them. Relatedly, because they’ve become such large institutions, it’s possible that these firms can have a bureaucratic, corporate culture.
Legacy Megafunds continued:
Pros: Same as above
Cons: Same as above
Incredible firms who’ve done industry-defining deals for decades, and the qualities of the other legacy MFs can be applied to Bain and Carlyle. There was a time when they were grouped with the names above, but have lost their luster a bit. While you may be trading down slightly on prestige or exits relative to the other legacy MFs, these two are known for strong culture and an ability for associates to stay on after getting their MBA.
Pure Play PE:
Advent International, CD&R, H&F, Warburg Pincus
Pros: Learn from seasoned investors, focused solely on private equity. Oftentimes these firms are investing out of larger funds and generating higher returns than the more well-known legacy MFs. Top notch HF and MBA exits, mostly in line with the legacy MFs.
Cons: Not as well-known as firms listed above outside of the IB/PE/HF world. Lack of upward mobility also a common theme.
European Megafunds:
Pros: Historically more room for promotion than the US MFs, although this was likely a bigger difference a decade ago vs today. Offsites in Europe with travel via private plane. The chance to work a stint in Europe if you’re interested.
Cons: Weaker MBA placement due to lack of US presence in past years. Global staffing systems can be a nightmare. Investing in Europe can be tough, which is highlighted by the stark contrast in performance of the S&P versus European markets post-GFC.
Tech-Specific Megafunds:
Silver Lake, Thoma Bravo, Vista Equity
Pros: Industry specialization within a sector that has seen immense secular growth in recent decades. The opportunity to focus solely on software for those who love the space. Posted fund performance as strong as any in the 2000s and 2010s.
Cons: Tech valuations are the most volatile of any sector. Recent years have shown that paying lofty multiples during low interest rate periods for high-growth businesses lacking profitability can become very painful once rates ratchet up and growth stalls. A few donuts in their portfolios at the moment for this very reason. There was a time when most PE firms shied away from technology as an unproven asset class, but with the explosion of technology groups today, their once industry-leading returns will be difficult to replicate.
UMM Firms:
AmSec, Berkshire, Francisco Partners, Golden Gate, GTCR, Leonard Green, Madison Dearborn, New Mountain, Sycamore, THL, Veritas
This list could go on and on. The point is that there are so many fantastic firms in the UMM / MM space. For each of the firms above, you could make a compelling argument as to why someone should prioritize that firm over certain megafunds listed above. It’s foolish to believe that you can arbitrarily bifurcate the level of investing talent or rigor of the associate experience because fund X has a $15bn+ fund while fund Y has a $5bn-$10bn fund. Some of these UMM fund sizes have ballooned so much in recent years that they are consistently competing in the same auction processes as MFs, making the UMM / MF title wholly irrelevant.
—----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it’s worth, getting an offer from any of these funds is a significant accomplishment. With how PE recruiting timelines work, you won’t ever be deciding between two of these firms, so it’s not worth trying to rank them. Since you can only get an offer from one MF, take the time to think about which ones you would interview with first. Don’t sign with Carlyle over Permira, for example, only because of perceived prestige. Nor should you sign with Permira over Carlyle because an anonymous user on WSO said Permira “has better exit opps.” Don’t fall victim to the MF or bust mentality so often seen on this forum either. There are few MF offers to go around, especially relative to how often they are spoken about on this forum. The myopic focus of those entering IB on trying to go to MF PE, and more broadly, on pursuing the golden path of 2 + 2 + 2 will inevitably create disappointment for most by virtue of how few MF positions exist.
Furthermore, one could argue that even a MF seat may not be the best path for any given individual. The person who lands a MM offer at the firm that is perfect for them regarding strategy, location, culture, etc, and continually gets promoted without having to spend 200k on an MBA could very well have a more successful and fulfilling career than the Wharton / HYP > KKR / TPG / APO > H/S MBA individual endlessly blazing down the path of prestige only to burn out because of how tough those associate experiences are known to be.
From someone who went through the MF associate experience, it’s not the end all be all. What it does offer is arguably the best combination of training, branding, and forcing you to mature quickly that someone could hope for as they enter their mid to late twenties.
But there’s no free lunch. IB is tough. MF PE is on another level. The countless “MF PE and depressed” or “MF PE and burnt out” posts on this forum are a prime example of this. And remember that these are the cream of the crop of IB analysts, the people who had seemingly planned out their whole life just to land at a MF, who are tapping out. So if you’re recruiting or plan to recruit for MF roles, I’d urge you to make sure you have real conviction to make that choice.
Where's Onex in the MF categories?
Historically UMM. Currently beyond underwater.
What do you mean by “underwater”?
How to think about the MFs
Established Name / Most Options Post-Associate Years: Blackstone, KKR, TPG, Carlyle
Learning to invest: H&F, Apollo, Advent
Getting promoted: LOL
Making partner: LOL
Prestige: KKR, Blackstone
Mental Toughness: APO, TPG, H&F
Lifestyle & Happiness: Bain, Carlyle
Lighting Money on Fire: Clearlake, Onex, Golden Gate, Platinum
Seeing Friends & Family: N/A
Why is Bain grouped with Carlyle and not the first group? Bain has had better returns than some in the first group and Carlyle is a dumpster fire comparatively
Because Carlyle is a MF that has struggled in recent years while Bain is a UMM.
Can post returns of recent vintages?
The hard truth is that these firms are not thought of as equal by candidates during recruiting, and it shows in the quality of the associates hired
The median associate at Apollo / H&F / TPG / KKR is much better than Carlyle / Apax / Permira / Bain
For most people recruiting in PE, their first choice firm is usually one in the former category, and almost never the latter names
You can think of it like college admissions. Do HS students really ever prefer Brown, Claremont McKenna, or Tufts to HYP? They don’t and the same goes for PE recruiting
The core message of this post still rings true. All firms will provide a candidate access to the same opportunities.
TPG doesn't belong in that tier.
If you’ve actually worked at one of those firms, you’d know they don’t offer the same opps
At least Apollo gives you the chance to stay, but many other firms avoid hiring Apollo associates because of a lack of cultural fit
At least TPG / H&F have some of the best MBA / HF placement, but you’re strictly 2 and out, plus your associate experience is especially rough even within MF programs
BX / KKR MBA placement have struggled heavily, but probably the two most recognizable names in the industry
But trying to rank those 5 is akin to the man child in his mothers basement ranking Victoria Secret models
You mean like WowCaliberTalent?
Taking face, coloring (hair/skin/eye color), body and height into account
1. Hilary Rhoda (6'0)
Rationale: Top tier height, body, shoulder width, coloring, jaw, side profile
2. Ana Beatriz Barros (5'11.5)
Rationale: Great height, striking/unique coloring, above average face
3. Gisele Bundchen (5'11)
Rationale: All rounder, great height, face, coloring, side profile, etc
4. Adriana Lima (5'10)
Rationale: Top tier frontal face and eyes and coloring, handicapped by an atrocious side profile and weak jaw/chin, average height
5. Alessandra Ambrosio (5'7.5)
Rationale: Top tier eye area, jaw and good side profile, handicapped by eye color and height
This tiering feels a little silly. KKR's class is silly small, H&F's class size is sometimes more than 50% (or higher) consultants, analysts generally prefer NY and San Fran to Boston or DC, Apax is not even a top "euro in the US" fund, and Permira doesn't use headhunters so you have to actively seek them out, which usually means actively knowing someone there. Is idk the Wharton valedictorian who went to PJT probably ending up at APO or KKR more than the others? Sure. But would a PJT/EVR top-bonus banker ending up at anywhere on the list except maybe Apax be surprising? Not at all. On-cycle requires so many harsh "cut" choices for in-demand applicants that judging someone for being at Blackstone instead of Bain (or even, shocker, smaller funds) is kind of meaningless.
True ranking of how analysts prioritized firms when I was recruiting
Tier 1: BX / APO / KKR / TPG / H&F
Tier 2: Warburg / Silver Lake / Advent / CD&R
Tier 3: EQT / Permira / CVC / Thoma Bravo
Tier 4: Carlyle / Apax / Bain / Vista
Not making judgements about which firms are better or if differences are significant at all, but this is how everyone bucketed the MFs
This is only useful assuming information symmetry and that 21 year old mouthbreathing incoming AN1s are rational actors. BX and TPG does not belong in the same tier as Tier 1 (APO/KKR/H&F)
Silver Lake, Thoma Bravo, Apax, Bain and to a lesser extent Permira are not MFs.
Not sure why people are grouping TPG with the BX / APO / KKR / H&F.
Apollo / BX / H&F cover the value - vanilla - growth spectrum respectively very well which make them top choices for people interested in each of those strategies. If you had a strong preference to do coverage, your top choice would then likely be KKR. If you specifically wanted tech, then you'd probably lean silver lake. Combine that with TPG being on the west coast which makes it intrinsically less desirable for most people.
Unless you're weirdly really into healthcare, there are pretty much no people that would take a TPG offer over their choice of BX / Apollo / KKR / H&F / SL.
There are no people who are ever choosing between multiple offers from this group of firms. Nature of PE recruiting today whether you like it or not.
The post is about discussing the merits of each associate experience across MFs.
BX / KKR / TPG / H&F / Apollo are all going to give you the same traditional MF experience and exits, which is why you see them bucketed together.
Saying people prefer SL over APO / BX / KKR / TPG / H&F is laughable. If anything, those 5 were unequivocally the top 5 for everyone I know who recruited MF, with SL in the next bucket of firms with Advent, Carlyle, Bain and others
Trying your thought experiment, no one should ever list KKR, TPG, or H&F with Blackstone or Apollo because they are the only two firms that people would truly choose if they could pick any offer for themselves.
Of course that’s not a helpful way to frame this discussion. Hence why those posting are giving a broader tier of firms.
It is rare that analysts have this concrete a tier list beyond the top 4-ish places but even with that caveat this tiering is silly. Others have pointed out that having multiple offers, at least more than 2, is not really a thing in on-cycle. But even granting the premise, gun to an analyst's head and none of them are taking EQT or CVC, or probably Permira, over Carlyle. Yeah yeah there's a fund size differential now but the legacy MF status and b-school placement is going to get the prestige hoes going more than any hot raise ever could.
Francisco Partners should be considered a MF at this point. Deserves to be in the same grouping as TB, Vista, and SL
None of the four are remotely close to MFs.
If you view APO / KKR / TPG / H&F in a different light than CD&R / Advent / EQT / Permira you’re either only thinking about pre-MBA roles or are so hellbent on prestige and the 2 + 2 + 2 golden path mentality that you’re missing the forest for the trees.
Diamond Path: Eton -> W -> PJT RSSG -> APO -> HBS -> Tiger Global
Golden Path: Andover -> H -> CVP -> H&F -> GSB -> Lone Pine
Silver Path: Exeter -> Y -> Allen & Co -> KKR -> W -> Viking
Would take golden path over diamond path every time
.
.
Ik this is a clueless high school troll but very few kids at Eton if any are remotely interested in doing undergrad in the US
lone pine > tiger global tho !
This site is predominantly used by pre-mba candidates - nobody is here is (or is qualified to) debate the merits of being a partner at these places.
Post-MBA this may be the case but not for pre-mba
Golden Gate is a zombie fund
How so? Thought they were great
They literally can’t raise money
Not so sure - they did well on red lobster ransack and their head is notorious for never giving up carry / having strong relationships to maintain a steady AUM at the firm (which is an evergreen fund).
The comments in this thread go precisely against the idea of OP’s post
If you get an offer from any of firms listed here do not turn it down. Holding out for something better is both a flawed premise and a big risk
Try telling this to an undergrad or fresh new analyst. Most have only experienced success in the path from HS to college to banking, and then get humbled with the difficulty of landing a great seat in PE
This is a p good list and good way to think about firms from a prospective associate perspective
Agreed. Encourage those recruiting to use this as a guide
Missing brookfield, genstar, WCAS, arguably platinum equity and L catterton as well
Isn’t platinum’s performance in the dumps?
general thoughts on brookfield? know they're more known for infra and RE
I have juggled offers from multiple at multiple points in my career
I have worked at multiple on this list and wouldn't agree with characterization re ppl not knowing advent or cd&r outside of pe sponsors are so embedded in corporate America now literally everyone knows you
but anyway good post
Pls explain how u had multiple offers from this list
Pls explain how u had multiple offers from this list
Pls explain how u had multiple offers from this list
Pls explain how u had multiple offers from this list
Like by interviewing ? What do u mean
I wish some of you appreciated how much of a dork you sound like.
how woould you guys rank Baird, Browns Gibbons Lange, and JMP securities based off ability to get to BX then HBS then Lone Pine? also wat is all in comp of BX partner? thx
Can someone comment on their investment philosphy? Which of these funds are more focused on value creation vs financial engineering?
Value Creation / Operational Focus: TPG, Bain Capital, KKR, New Mountain, Berkshire
Financial Engineering: Apollo, CD&R, Cerberus, Centerbridge
Onex, AmSec, Clearlake (not mentioned by OP) and MDP are basically zombies at this point.
TPG no where near in the same category as Bx / Apollo / KKR. Would clump with Carlyle, Bain, etc in the “also ran” MF category.
There’s a cohort of super elite pure plays. H&F, Warburg, Silver Lake (not really a pure play anymore).
Top Euro funds: Advent, Permira, CVC. Apex has sucked for a long time so demoted out of this group 10 years ago.
Tech specialists are Thoma, Vista, Insight, SL (repeat from above), Hg (via Europe), Francisco Partners. Insight flirting with zombie category as well.
Incredible performance shops: H&F, Veritas, CD&R, GTCR.
Growth Equity: Warburg, General Atlantic.
Where you want to work as an associate has a lot to do with your background and what you want to do after.
If you have a mediocre pedigree and can somehow get to one of the gold plated brands, so there to cleanse yourself of your non-target filth.
If you’re hell bent on school (not sure why), then go to a strong H/S feeder. Eg Bain, Warburg, KKR.
If you’re hell bent on PE and know it (including how much you’ll suffer upfront), go to a spot where you can see line of sight to promotion (ie analyze the org structure/chart of the team you’ll be joining) and make sure returns are solid or at least consistently mediocre.
If you want something with a reasonable lifestyle, stop reading this thread, go to your closet, put your running shoes on, start running and don’t stop until you’re headlong in the surf.
CD&R doesn’t make it to the super elite pure play cluster?
I hope that one day you feel the touch of a woman for the very first time.
This is basically correct, with the caveat that a pre-MBA stint at one of the “also-rans” may still be very valuable for b-school and post-mba or lateral recruiting. It’s a bit of the sweet spot between brand name / selectivity and difficult career path post-mba that can make you a pretty ideal candidate in August of second year of b-school for Hot 2 Billion Dollar Fund du Jour
Why is MDP a zombie fund? Haven’t heard anything bad so far
how does kps and cerberus do in terms of exits to HF and MBA?
Sorry, who? Never heard of ‘em.
This is actually a great post, and pretty similar to how I thought about it when I recruited (ignore title, but am MF PE associate).
I would heavily highlight something mentioned here - no promotion chances at most of their legacy MF's. If you want to actually get to partner, you are significantly more likely and thus significantly more likely to make multiples of money if you can find yourself a solid growing platform of a PE firm. Those are not that common and hard to separate the wheat from the chaffe, but if you can they are much stronger longer-term seats than any of the MF's. Would much rather be the associate that became a partner in a firm that grew from a 2Bn fund to a 15Bn one vs. joining a 10Bn fund that is 20Bn in 10 years, simply much more opportunity for advancement and outsized returns (i.e higher carry) in the former. Stop chasing prestige and try to find what will get you the best compensation in a relatively risky way (cus if you are going for PE, you are inherently pretty risk-adverse). Is it possible that you're MM firm goes bust? Yes of course, but most that have seen huge growth don't go bust and even if it did, you can try again for a new one. It's worth the risk-reward vs having to do an MBA to enter a growing firm or the risk-reward of having to join one later in the process (institutional cred is a thing and a lot of firms love promoting from within particularly within the MM PE world).
This is so dumb. If you account most are two and out, and most are going to be rough, and most are big names, and most have pretty mid returns, then the only one that stands out is H&F
The true trier 1A is H&F. That’s it. Acting like Bx’s low teens returns means they’re any better than Carlyle or Bain or insert whatever is mind boggling. Promise adcoms don’t read this shit and don’t care and I promise the prestige will not get you through a citadel or Viking interview. You guys are not optimizing for being actually capable given all these things ur ranking are generally the same.
Porro deleniti velit accusantium commodi excepturi non ab nulla. Quidem exercitationem cupiditate labore totam voluptate dolore nihil optio.
Nemo harum quo eligendi est. Error provident quasi possimus nostrum sed. Non excepturi explicabo quia vel quibusdam nesciunt quis. Et repudiandae voluptas velit ipsam aperiam iure. Quia asperiores repellendus expedita et ut dignissimos rem laudantium.
Et soluta sunt vel cumque. Voluptates inventore aut architecto voluptates. Atque qui animi voluptate eum repellat qui. Qui explicabo est odio doloremque.
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...
Exercitationem id sed voluptatum autem dolores exercitationem modi. Ex magnam temporibus eos non sint ut. Corrupti enim quae recusandae consectetur hic molestiae ducimus sint. Aut tenetur sit consequatur corporis dicta autem eum. Dolorem voluptates tempore autem nulla praesentium. In placeat qui ullam velit.
Illo eos ut maxime aliquam. Et et repellat in magni. Culpa consectetur accusantium qui quia quidem. Hic blanditiis et voluptatem in nulla ex et.
Libero praesentium architecto voluptatem magni velit ab ducimus porro. Voluptatum ab earum tempora consequatur quasi officiis quasi. Fugiat excepturi perspiciatis quae dolorem omnis. Dolore debitis est harum suscipit odio.
Error dolorem dolor vitae occaecati dignissimos ut. Nemo quia reprehenderit consequuntur voluptatem quaerat odit quasi. Nesciunt eius voluptas aut accusamus optio qui. Accusamus magni quia et nesciunt aut optio.
Officiis nihil amet officia ut doloremque et. Animi velit itaque quia velit ut est. Quia fuga culpa error magnam iure neque repellat.
Omnis non consequatur eaque ex odit est dolore dolorum. Qui possimus debitis sed est voluptatem. Doloribus assumenda nulla a itaque blanditiis. Omnis facere veniam corporis fugit perspiciatis. Soluta qui minima quia libero ducimus est officia. Doloribus consequatur at facilis saepe. Eaque itaque libero sunt illo voluptatem.
Iusto eveniet nostrum aliquam adipisci. Laudantium recusandae tenetur et aperiam est. Sed ullam aspernatur ea occaecati veritatis facilis. Dolorem voluptatum aut reiciendis magni rerum. Adipisci ut illum soluta suscipit. Quo non quia qui iusto commodi perferendis dignissimos.
Aut ducimus in explicabo est voluptas quia. Est consequatur qui similique vel maxime.