Should I take VC offer or retry for PE?
Hi, I’m 30 with management consulting background from MBB, looking for a change of career towards PE.
Overall I got really far in the process, applied to 10 tire 1 firms from both large and mid-size that were hiring at the time, most went to 3–4 rounds of interviews while the rest went to the test phase.
Here’s the kick: I didn’t study hard enough for the LBO modeling (not much accounting knowledge to begin with), and that was the main reason I didn’t get an offer. (BS didnt balance, and I made a few mistakes....)
I now have 2 VC offers that I applied to as backup, and need to decide whether to take one of them, or reject and go for a second round of PE applications after I take some time to perfect my modeling.
My question is: if you’re more looking for a PE career, would you kick the VC offers and continue, or accept your fate and start in VC?
Considering that after I take the VC offer, it wouldn't be easy to change career into PE after.
(Also, I feel like getting 2/2 VC offers makes me seem more “fit” for VC than PE…)
Any inputs or opinions will be greatly appreciated!
Accept the VC offer. Within high finance, many actually view top-tier VC as the more selective and aspirational track — even associates at MF PE firms often covet a strong VC exit. The reason is twofold:
• Selectivity & Prestige: The bar for entry at leading VC platforms is often higher, and the networks you build can open doors that are difficult to access from the buyout world.
• Nature of the Work: Venture allows you to actively shape the ecosystem, backing frontier technologies and helping founders build entirely new categories, rather than focusing on acquiring and incrementally improving mature businesses that can feel commoditized or less dynamic in PE.
In short, a top-tier VC seat provides a rarer mix of prestige, selectivity, and impact
Whatever floats your boat my man hahaah
Thanks for the perspective!
In my case, this particular VC fund isn’t considered as prestigious as the tier-1 PE/VC names. In fact, it was suggested to me by a mid-size PE fund that wasn’t hiring at the time.
That’s part of why I’m still debating....the role itself is solid, but the “prestige” angle doesn’t feel as strong compared to what I’d get if I can land a PE seat.
So even in VC, there is a part of me that feels I should properly apply...
Thanks ChatGPT!
Yeah, obvious AI slop
Have worked in both at top tier firms
Wanted to kms in PE
VC is fun
Would take VC if good firm/brand
Thanks a lot!
The only thing is, it isnt as top tire VC, the members are great and the AUM is high but its new and small.
(This fund was suggested by a mid-size PE fund that wasn't hiring at that time)
all this means is you have a significantly higher chance of climbing the ladder if things go well
VC is a great offer, but the fact that you're posting this makes me think you're hesitating / aren't sure you'll like VC. Just because it's a good career path or "prestigious" doesn't mean it's for everyone. What's your concerns with it and why do you want PE instead?
I would be eyes wide open that the burnout rate in PE is extremely high though, the hours/stress will likely be worse than MBB especially if you know you'll be coming in behind those in IB who have been living and breathing models for 2 years
Thank you so much!
Its true, I can see the stress/hours in the interviewers.
I actually ran my own business back in uni, so I’ve seen the startup/VC world from the inside. To be honest, 1) I’m not a big fan of the startup field or the type of people/culture around it, and 2) it feels a bit too casual for me. (and 3), I feel like "next steps" are more limited compared to PE.)
With PE, the entire business model is much more attractive. Instead of just giving advice or opinions, you actually go in, take ownership, and drive the outcome. That makes the impact more tangible, and in my view the probability of a successful outcome is higher. Also I tend to like the ppl I meet during interviews compared to VC.
In that case I would keep recruiting then. If you're getting to final rounds with large funds, you're not far off.
I personally don't like the startup field either so I would not pursue VC, even if I had an offer at a top fund. It's just not personally interesting to me, even if it's a top/prestigious offer - you have to maximize for what you will enjoy and succeed at.
I’d echo what others have said in terms of pursuing what you believe is most interesting, and that sounds like VC in your case. I think you could always play devils advocate and I could list a number of reasons around the challenges of succeeding in VC and the current environment but all that matters is what you think.
I’d also say that if you’re still struggling with financial accounting and LBO modeling at this point in your career and prep process, PE is not going to be the route for you. Not only are these skills key to ultimately getting an offer but the bar will only be higher when you’re actually in the seat. The people I’ve seen struggle the most are those that are shaky on the quantitative side and slower to complete work or understand topics that most firms view as table stakes. In VC, the work is drastically different and allows you to flex the softer quantitative skills.
This is an overly rigid and exclusionary lens. As a Principal in PE, I would say modeling is a teachable, repeatable skill; it’s not the differentiator at the Associate level. Top-tier firms ultimately assess judgment, deal sense, and ability to drive processes
I honestly thought I was being pretty generous with my comment. OP is 30 and is struggling to get his BS to balance on an LBO model with an admittedly weak grasp of other accounting topics. Not saying these topics can’t be learned but he’s fighting an uphill battle, to say the least. Assuming he does finally land a job, it’s hard to say that he wouldn’t struggle relative to people close to a decade younger that are sharp on these concepts.
My main point was does OP really want to go down that route. His choice ultimately but coming from an MBB background puts you behind your banker peers in the areas you mentioned (deal sense / managing a transaction process). And this is coming from someone that didn’t do banking.
Surprised that I'm the only "hold out for PE" vote. I'm former MBB with nearly 10 years in PE and no prior PE experience (didn't do CDD/PEG; not undergrad business). The modeling is indeed very learnable and simply not taught appropriately in MBB (so I'm not shocked that it's a new skill).
The VC to PE path effectively doesn't exist, so I wouldn't take VC as a stepping stone unless you'd be happy ending there.
I'm not under-estimating the challenge of landing a PE role from MBB, but the path is there if you put in the work. DM me if I can be helpful.
Also FWIW, my case study BS didn't balance either. I was given grace and ultimately ramped into a strong modeler (albeit put in the hustle on the job to get there).
My advice above changes if you joined MBB post-MBA. I'm assuming that you've been there since undergrad.
What is the AUM and profile of the VC firm?
If accounting and LBO/3-statement model tests are where you're hitting road bumps... you're probably better off in VC man. It's a more conducive environment to someone from a consulting background anyway so I'd consider these losses on the PE side to be the universe's way of telling you which direction to take.
It honestly isn't a step down in anything except comp and perhaps exit ops (I wouldn't say you have less on the whole per say, just very different ones). For what it's worth, I tried making the switch to VC/GE for brief period after doing ASO/Sr ASO stint in MM LBO/Growth PE and found that to be a difficult transition/couldn't make it to final rounds in the vast majority of processes I joined. I know a couple of PE guys who also tried to make the VC jump and were similarly unsuccessful. So having these 2 offers in-hand should be seen as a win!
Pivoting from PE to VC/GE is extremely challenging. Top-tier VC/GE firms rarely hire outside their pipelines unless you can show differentiated value—deep sector expertise, founder networks, or a track record of thesis-driven sourcing. Pure PE skills in modeling and accounting aren’t enough; you need to prove you can originate, underwrite, and add value in a venture or growth context. Without that, breaking in is nearly impossible
Totally get it. My background was coming from a BD-forward fund (did still model/create decks; was "full stack") and I'd sourced a few platforms and add-ons. My first finance exp came from early-stage VC which I thought would support my story of "why change" and did help me get looks from a couple of T1/T2 late-stage VC/GE firms, but I was still looked at as the "PE" guy once the process really started. It's very tough!
Don't get why the general advice is to take the VC offer. Because PE is much harder to switch to compared to the other way around.
i thought about this over the weekend once again. changed my mind after reading your post again the 3rd time. Making mistakes with B/S is not a huge deal but if you couldn't seem to learn from previous mistakes, it would be wise to go with the VC offer. VC is more fun, less modelling and less hours
Cumque qui ducimus expedita unde aut ut. Est consequatur eos voluptatem qui praesentium dolor. Qui qui eum ipsam modi. Tempore cum inventore iusto voluptatem.
Quis illo explicabo facilis ea fuga corporis aut. Unde odit ducimus doloribus quisquam sint distinctio incidunt. Eligendi iste voluptas doloremque iure qui. Porro inventore rem sequi saepe ut. Eum aperiam ea expedita non saepe. Est molestiae recusandae maiores animi rerum quibusdam amet ex.
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...
Voluptates rerum sapiente excepturi corporis ab qui. Eos veritatis dignissimos porro animi sequi consectetur quasi. Ut eos ut corrupti voluptatem corporis ut. Omnis nemo error perferendis et nam et placeat.