Biotech/Pharma/HC - BCG or McK stronger?

Alex1020's picture
Rank: Chimp | 5


I am considering to enter consulting as an ADP, coming with a science background and a PhD from a large Bay Area Biotech company.

Keep reading and hearing (from McK consultants though) that McK is doing significantly more in my sector than BCG.

Is that true? Anyone here with some insight? Would appreciate it very much.



Comments (8)

Nov 4, 2010

If that's true it's only by a slim margin - BCG's pharma group has done some big stuff recently, too. Comparing the two is like harvard vs. princeton - the difference doesn't matter and they're both about as good as it gets.

Nov 5, 2010

Thanks, good to hear. Are they equally active on east and west coast or does on of them have a regional focus?

Nov 5, 2010

at this level your experience does not really depend on whether mck is stronger or bcg...since difference is negligible

it will depend more on the projects you're staffed on and the manager/partners

think you should get the offers and compare which people you like more (the culture of the office, etc)

Nov 5, 2010

McK and BCG both have strong pharma practices. But I've heard from insiders that McK has more public sector engagements. If you're interested in working with any government agencies on issues like healthcare reform or improving the regulatory process for drug dev, McK may have an edge.

Nov 5, 2010

Ok, thanks for the input. Keep posting in case somebody has more 'insider' information.

I do agree with 7S, at entry level the teams are probably much more important. I will apply for both of them anyway since it is anything but easy to get an offer.

Nov 5, 2010

Biotech might be McK, pharma I'd give to BCG, but I think they share a bunch of clients in pharma. Both will do a lot of work there.

Jan 24, 2017

for Payor / Provider, McK dominates. BCG is still building theirs out.

Jan 25, 2017
    • 1