McKinsey Solve - Sea Wolf outcome

Question

Hi everyone,

quick question regarding McKinsey Solve / Sea Wolf:

Is it statistically plausible / common to achieve the following scores in Sea Wolf, e.g.

~60% on one site,
~80% on another,
and ~100% on a third,
Or would such a distribution typically point a execution error. In all my simulations that I prepared I sometimes had 1x80%, 2x100%, or 3x100%. I never had 60% or even 2x80%. I am worried that I did a worse job in the Sea Wolf than in my prep.

Additionally, I would conservatively estimate my Red Rock performance at ~80%.

Based on this overall profile, would you expect this to be sufficient to pass Solve and progress to interviews?
Also, when does McKinsey usually communicate next steps or provide feedback after Solve?

Thanks a lot for your insights!

Answer 1

It's hard to say for certain because McKinsey doesn't share exactly how they score Solve. But here are my thoughts.

A mix like 60%, 80%, and 100% on Sea Wolf isn't ideal, but it's not automatically a fail. The test measures how you approach problems, not just perfect answers. One weaker site doesn't disqualify you if your overall reasoning is solid.

If your practice runs were consistently better, something may have gone differently. Nerves, time pressure, or a harder scenario. It happens.

On Red Rock, 80% is decent. Combined with your Sea Wolf scores, it's a mixed profile. Not a guaranteed pass, but not a clear fail either. It depends on the office and how many candidates they're evaluating.

On timing, McKinsey usually responds within 1-3 weeks. If you haven't heard after 3 weeks, follow up with your recruiter.

Worrying now won't change anything. Focus on preparing for interviews in case you move forward. If you don't pass, you can usually retake Solve after 12-18 months.

Good luck.

Answer 2

Hi there,

Yes, that kind of distribution is absolutely plausible and not uncommon. Sea Wolf is designed to test different skills across sites, and performance can vary meaningfully depending on the specific mechanics, time pressure, or decision trade-offs in each one. A 60% on one site alongside 80% and 100% on others does not automatically point to an execution error, especially if you felt your logic was sound. Many strong candidates see more variance in the real test than in practice simulations.

It’s also very normal for prep performance to feel cleaner than the actual Solve. The live environment, fatigue, and stakes tend to introduce more noise. An estimated ~80% on Red Rock combined with generally solid Sea Wolf performance would typically be considered competitive. McKinsey does not require perfection, they look at the overall signal across games rather than any single score.

As for timing, next steps are usually communicated anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks after Solve, depending on the office and hiring cycle. No news in the first week is very normal.

At this point, there’s nothing to “fix” retroactively. Your profile sounds well within the range of candidates who progress, so try not to overanalyze individual percentages.

Best,
Evelina

Answer 3

hey there :)

That kind of spread can definitely happen and on its own does not suggest a mistake, Sea Wolf performance often varies by site and they assess the full picture rather than individual percentages. A profile with one weaker, one strong and one very strong site plus a solid Red Rock result is commonly enough to move forward. Feedback or next steps usually come within about one to two weeks, depending on the office. Happy to chat more if you want.

best,
Alessa :)