BCG structuring depth vs McKinsey

Question

I’m preparing for BCG candidate-led interviews, having previously come from a more McKinsey-style, interviewer-led preparation. In my McKinsey preparation and interviews, I was used to presenting fairly detailed structures, often going down to level 3–4 depth when laying out the issue tree.

I’ve noticed that BCG sample solutions and consultant slides also show deep issue trees, but in actual BCG candidate-led interviews candidates seem expected to present a much higher-level structure with only a few top-level buckets.

My question is: in a BCG candidate-led interview, what is the right depth to verbally present when structuring the case? Should candidates explicitly lay out deeper sub-branches up front, as I did in McKinsey interviews, or is the expectation to present a shallow, decision-oriented structure and then demonstrate depth later through analysis and prioritization?

I’m trying to understand whether BCG evaluates depth primarily at the structuring moment itself or through the subsequent analysis, and how much detail is considered “too much” when presenting the initial structure.

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

Answer 1

This is one of the most common pitfalls for candidates transitioning between the two firms' styles. You’re right to notice the difference, and it’s less about the visual output and more about the underlying philosophy of the candidate-led interview.

Here is the key distinction: McKinsey interviews often test your ability to build a comprehensive, air-tight safety net—a structure that covers every base (hence the L3/L4 detail upfront, ensuring MECE is proven). BCG is testing your ability to rapidly prioritize and own the ambiguity.

For a BCG candidate-led case, you absolutely should not present L3 or L4 detail in the initial verbal structure. That depth will be viewed as rigid and a poor use of time. Your initial presentation should be high-level—Level 1 buckets, perhaps one key Level 2 split if it’s critical to your prioritization hypothesis—and that's it. You must demonstrate that your structure is a living hypothesis, not a completed blueprint.

BCG evaluates depth not at the structuring moment, but through the subsequent analysis and prioritization. The interviewer wants to hear the top-level branches, and then immediately hear your logic for why you are prioritizing Branch A over Branch B. Your deeper rigor (the L3/L4 knowledge you built in your McK prep) should be evident when you dive into that single prioritized branch, defining the necessary data, or explaining the calculations required to prove or disprove your hypothesis. If you spend 5 minutes outlining L4 structure, you have lost control of the clock and demonstrated a lack of commercial judgment about where the highest impact lies.

Focus on setting up a clear, decision-oriented structure, pivot quickly to your hypothesis, and then let your depth shine when you are challenged on the specifics of the prioritized area.

All the best!

Answer 2

Hi there,

Yes this is a key difference between the two interview styles. For BCG, one should present up to Level 2 and Level 3 only for some branches that they consider a priority, and then drive the interview by asking for information required.

Answer 3

Hey there,

I wouldn’t think about this as depth vs. no depth between McKinsey and BCG. In both firms, you typically have ~2 minutes to structure, and that time should be used to build a solid L1 and L2 structure that is clearly MECE and case-specific.

A structure that is too high-level is usually not sufficient at either firm and it often stays generic and doesn’t give you enough traction to actually solve the case.

What I do see as a nuance in BCG candidate-led cases is slightly more emphasis on being very explicit about what the case is trying to solve for (the decision or hypothesis you make), and then anchoring the structure around that/diving deeper into that. But it still needs to be complete and rigorous.

A practical way to handle this in the 2-minute window:

Build strong and MECE L1 and L2 quickly (this is non-negotiable at both firms)
If time allows, definitely go deeper (L3, sometimes L4) in the bucket you believe will matter most
Use that deeper branch as your anchor for where you expect the case to go and where you’d start the analysis

This shows two things interviewers care about:

you can structure the full problem properly, and
you can prioritize and signal depth where it matters most.

So the difference isn’t that BCG wants “shallow” structures, it’s that they value intentional depth: going deep in the right place, rather than everywhere by default

That mindset works well for both BCG and McKinsey in practice.

Hope this helps!

Answer 4

Honestly, people are making a much bigger deal out of this than it really is.

I've coached around 400 people by now, and ~70% of the offer holders went to MBBs. The approach that I've used in coaching them has been virtually the same.

In fact, I recommend people to assume all cases are candidate-led, because if you signal that you know how to lead the case, that's going to be incredibly valuable even in a McKinsey interviewer-led case.

All consulting firms look for virtually the same things. Any claim that suggests they look for something different is partly an effort at marketing difference rather than actual difference in substance.

In short, don't worry about switching from one to the other. Make sure that you are effective at doing the cases. A candidate that delivers an excellent case performance at McKinsey, will never provide a bad case experience at BCG because of some assumptions that they should go X levels deep instead of Y levels deep.

Best,
Cristian

Answer 5

hey there :)

great question and you are observing this correctly. in BCG candidate led cases the expectation is a clear high level decision oriented structure at the start, usually level one to two, and then showing depth through smart prioritization and sharp analysis as you go. laying out very deep trees upfront often feels too theoretical for BCG and can slow you down, whereas McKinsey tolerates more upfront depth. BCG mainly evaluates depth through how you navigate the case, not how complex the initial structure sounds. let me know if you want to prep together, I got the cross offer and know exactly what to look for.

best,
Alessa :)