How big is the case study Interview skill gap from T3 to T2 firms?

I would not treat T3-to-T2 as a fixed jump in difficulty; the more useful question is which skills the target interview will test and how consistently you can demonstrate them.

The gap is usually less about suddenly needing a secret set of harder frameworks and more about the level of precision expected:

1. Structure: Can you define the decision and build a tailored issue tree, rather than start from a memorised template?

2. Quantitative work: Are your calculations fast, transparent and checked, with the business meaning explained afterwards?

3. Judgement: Can you prioritise the next analysis, interpret an imperfect result and change direction when the interviewer gives you new information?

4. Communication: Can you lead the conversation, state a clear answer and support it with the few points that matter most?

I would use your Simon-Kucher experience as a baseline, then do several Roland Berger-style cases under timed conditions and ask your partners to score those four dimensions separately. That will tell you whether you have a genuine skill gap or simply need to adapt to a different case format.

Also check the firm's current recruiting material and any guidance from your recruiter for the specific office and role. Interview difficulty varies by interviewer, round and candidate level, so “T2” alone is not a reliable preparation plan. If you can consistently clarify the problem, prioritise, calculate cleanly and synthesise, you are preparing for the common core.

Hi there,

I would treat your Simon Kucher experience as more of an asset here than the T3 to T2 label suggests, and I would not expect the cases to get harder so much as shaped differently.

Simon Kucher cases sit heavily on pricing, monetisation and willingness to pay, and the quant is unforgiving, so your arithmetic is probably not the constraint. The habit that travels badly is the reflex to steer a case toward price and value capture. A Roland Berger case is more likely to be a make or buy question, a footprint decision or an operational problem in an industrial or automotive setting, and a structure that quietly routes back to pricing reads as a candidate running their own case rather than the one in front of them.

A few things I would do with the time you have:

• Take three cases whose answer is not a pricing answer and check, after each one, whether your structure still ended up there.
• Write the actual question down in one sentence before you build anything, and go back to it after every exhibit.
• Prepare to case in German if the office is in DACH, since a case you can run in English but not in German is a case you can only half run.
• After a case that went badly, ask whether more time would have got you there. If yes it is pacing, if no it is structure, and those two need completely different practice.

Internship cases also tend to run shorter than full time ones, which puts disproportionate weight on the first five minutes. Candidates leaving a specialist process consistently prepare for the level and get caught by the shape.

Hey there :) I would not think of it as a huge jump in case difficulty. The fundamentals are very similar: structuring, quantitative work, interpreting exhibits and communicating a clear recommendation. The main difference is usually the consistency and depth expected, especially in how independently you structure the problem and how well you synthesize your findings.

Since you already interviewed with Simon Kucher, you have a useful foundation. I’d focus less on learning completely new frameworks and more on doing cases with stronger structure, cleaner calculations and sharper synthesis. I had offers from both Roland Berger and McKinsey, so feel free to reach out if you want to practise a RB style case.

Best, Alessa :)

Hi there,

I would not treat this as a fixed T3 to T2 jump. The differences are more-so role based and interviewer based, but even then they're minor.

Please remember than any type of case can be asked. Please do not prepare for a set of case types - you will only be disappointed and caught off-gaurd when the interview happens.

Rather, prepare for eveyr major case type AND train yourself in the unexpected. Practice being surprised by unique cases, and reacting appropriately.

In general, don't worry about the details...focus on being 100% prepared for all possibilities! The only sure-fire strategy is training to ace the case - there's no variation in this!

The fact that you've already interviewed with Simon-Kucher gives you a useful baseline. Focus on stronger structure, cleaner math, sharper synthesis, and adapting to the case in front of you rather than trying to estimate a precise difficulty gap.

I also recommend reviewing The Most Common Pitfalls in Case Interview Preparation.

Good luck!

Do not treat Roland Berger as a fixed difficulty level above Simon-Kucher. The useful question is whether you can perform the core skills consistently in the target interview: clarify the decision, build a tailored structure, calculate cleanly, interpret exhibits and synthesize a recommendation.

Use your Simon-Kucher experience as a diagnostic. Review where you needed prompting, lost time or failed to connect an analysis to the business decision. Then run several timed cases with a partner who can score each skill separately. That will reveal a real gap; the T2/T3 label will not.

Avoid learning a new library of firm-specific frameworks. Practise cases outside your familiar pricing or financial-services topics so you must adapt the structure to the problem. Ask recruiting about the interview format and language for your exact office. Everything else should focus on clearer reasoning, stronger business judgment and more consistent delivery.