Kearney, Oliver Wyman or Roland Berger?

Hi there,

I would be happy to share my thoughts on your questions:

• First of all, I would advise you not to over-optimize on the pay breakdown. The total compensation is similar, so base salary versus bonus versus perks is a small factor over a whole career. One thing though, a higher monthly base salary like at Roland Berger is guaranteed money, while a high bonus percentage at Oliver Wyman depends on the year, and free lunch and transport at Kearney are nice but do not move the needle much.
• Moreover, contrary to what other coaches have said, the most important question is most likely the practice and the network in the region where you want to build your career. In the DACH and Central European market, Roland Berger has most likely the strongest local brand and roots, Kearney is strong in operations and industrials, and Oliver Wyman is strongest in financial services. So the best choice really depends on the industry you want to be in, in case you already have developed a perspective on it.
• Lastly, I would advise you to decide based on the team you connected with during the interviews, since these shape your daily life much more than the paycheck.

You can find more on this topic here: Salaries in the consulting industry.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on your specific situation, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

Hi there,

Assuming you have the flexibility to join the same office across the three, I'd look at five main variables:

1. Practice mix
Where does each firm's work actually concentrate and how does that match your preferences, if you have any. Being in a firm's core area of expertise changes staffing quality, mentorship and visibility, regardless of office (e.g. if you fancy banking or insurance, probably OW would be the best fit).

2. Total comp evolution
What matters is the slope rather than the starting base, so you would need to look at what the total compensation looks like at the next two levels and how much of it is variable. Benefits (e.g. transport or lunch) become marginal quite quickly.

3. Path to partner
None of the three will publish this, but you can get close with a couple of checks: how many internal promotions to partner the office has made in the last three years, when did they join and from where. A pyramid that fills its top externally is telling you something about the path ahead of you.

4. Fit
Which process did you actually enjoy the most. You will be spending long hours with these people, on tight deadlines and under pressure, so the impression they left on you during the interviews is data worth taking seriously.

5. Staffing and delivery model
How much of the work is delivered on site versus from the office, how long the typical project runs and how far you are expected to travel for it. This is the axis that shapes your daily life the most.

Hope it helps and feel free to reach out if you think it would be useful to have a quick chat on which firm to choose based on your preferences on the above.

Hi, first of all congrats! That's a great position to be in. At that level, I honestly don't think compensation should drive the decision, especially if the total package is broadly comparable.

If I were choosing, I'd focus on four things:

• People. Which partners and managers did you connect with the most? They will have a much bigger impact on your experience than the firm's ranking.
• Type of work. Even within the same region, the mix can be quite different. Ask what the office has actually been doing over the last 12–18 months, not just what it's known for.
• Exit opportunities. All three firms have strong brands in Central Europe and DACH, but the exits will naturally reflect the type of projects you do.
• Promotion model and staffing. Understanding how you're staffed, how performance is evaluated, and what the promotion path looks like is often overlooked but can make a huge difference.

As a very broad characterization:

• Roland Berger tends to have particularly strong positioning in DACH, with deep industrial and automotive roots.
• Oliver Wyman is especially strong in financial services but has broadened considerably in recent years.
• Kearney has a long-standing reputation in operations, procurement and transformation, while also doing a wide range of strategy work.

Personally, I wouldn't choose based on whether one firm offers a higher bonus or free lunch. Those differences become fairly small over time.

I'd join the office where I believe I'll learn the most from the people around me and where the project pipeline best matches the kind of consultant I want to become. In my experience, that ends up mattering much more than relatively small differences in compensation.

Hi,

It's a "problem" but a good one to have :)

I would not urge you to look at the salary. In the long run, if you manage to stay in any T2/T1 consulting firm, you'll earn enough. 

Rather, I would consider the following points:

1. Strength of the brand
   1. Even within T1 and T2, regional variances exist
   2. I would always urge to go with the strongest brand
2. Industry / topic focus
   1. There can be quite stark differences here, and it would be important to find out a realistic sense of what projects these firms do
3. Scale of the company
   1. Makes a difference IMO, having come from a T2 and then moving to a T1

Many people talk about "cultural fit" - but tbh i think it can be abit hard to gauge that accurately just from a few conversations or interactions with a fraction of the people within the company.

You might find my article helpful if you are an experienced hire: Succeeding in Consulting as an Experienced Hire

All the best!

Indeed, look beyond the paycheck. 

I perfectly understand where you're coming from because when I started I was also weighing those things heavily. But I guess with time you understand how much more all the other things matter - firm culture, opportunities, office setup, etc. 

So since compensation is similar and you don't want to base your decision on that, I recommend you reach out to 1-2 people from each office and get a vibe check. Try to think beforehand what is important for you, what are your expectations and in what direction you'd want to grow. Then have those conversations and see what answers you come up with. 

Sharing here a guide that you might find useful in navigating these conversations:

• • Expert Guide: How To Handle Networking Calls and Get Referrals

Best,
Cristian

hey! 

In Central Europe the real difference is in how each firm feels day to day. OW is the most “consulting‑classic”: sharp problem‑solving, strong training, and very good exits. Kearney is the most operations‑heavy and pragmatic, with a friendly culture and stable hours. RB sits in the middle with strong industrial and restructuring work but a bit less global mobility. If pay is similar, most people aiming for long‑term consulting or top exits choose OW; people who want a more grounded, operations‑focused environment choose Kearney; and people who like industrial strategy or turnaround work choose RB. If you want, I can help you think through your priorities or compare exit paths.

Alessa 

What I see in practice is that Roland Berger is a massive heavyweight in this region, competing directly for top strategy and automotive work. Oliver Wyman is phenomenal but heavily focused on financial services and risk. Kearney is the gold standard for operations and supply chain.

What actually matters is the type of work you want. Choose Roland Berger for general strategy, Oliver Wyman for finance, or Kearney for operations. Do not let a free lunch choose your career.

Hope this helps, and good luck.