Monitor Deloitte Vs CIL Management Consultants Graduate Job

Question

Hi everyone

I have been lucky enough to receive graduate offers from both Monitor Deloitte and CIL Management Consultants (CDD boutique) in London and I am torn on which to accept. I would really appreciate people’s opinions on which is the better place to start a consulting career.

How I am thinking about it so far

CIL:

-Much better starting compensation, around 60% higher overall

-Strong PE work, which is a field I am interested in

-Potentially strong and high paying exit options, given the PE exposure

-I assume I would get more responsibility and exposure early

Monitor Deloitte:

-Strong name to start my career

-Exposure to a wider range of sectors and projects is exciting because I am not fully committed to commercial due diligence long term, but I also want to avoid being pushed into a specialism with weaker career prospects or that I do not find interesting.

-Year 1 pay is not a massive deal breaker, but I would hope Deloitte pay scales quite quickly over time

-I am also unsure which would put me in the best position for moving into MBB or better paying tier 2 firms later

What I care about most:

-Setting myself up for the best long term exit opportunities, potentially into MBB or PE related roles

-Getting strong early experience and development

-Maximising compensation over the next 5-10 years

Broad question:

Based on your experience and opinion, which offer would you take to start your career and why?

Any advice would be really appreciated, especially from anyone who has worked at either firm or has insight into exits and career progression from them

Answer 1

Congratulations! CIL would be my pick given your objectives (comp, exit opps. and experience). Here's my rationale:

1. Comp - if you starting comp is really 60% higher at CIL, it's likely that they'll win out over 5 years. (Realistically, I would think about a 5-year timeframe instead of 10 - the percentage who are still in consulting after 5 years is low.) That said, be sure to make sure you understand total comp expectations, not just base.

2. Exit opps. - All else equal, I would give higher odds to CDD boutique to MBB / PE versus Monitor to MBB / PE. Realistically, though, either path is tough for PE firms. Although CDD work gives you exposure to PE firms, IB to PE is a much more common path.

3. Experience - CDD is typically very intense, but you do get exposure to a lot of industries in a short space of time. The variability at Monitor is higher - you could end up on interesting strategy-oriented projects, but there's a good chance you end up working on more implementation-oriented Deloitte projects.

Hope that helps!

Answer 2

This is a fantastic position to be in. The choice between Monitor and CIL is a classic consulting trade-off: Brand Equity and Safety (Monitor) versus Specialized Velocity and Immediate Cash (CIL).

If your stated priorities are maximizing compensation and optimizing for PE-related exit opportunities, the strategic choice is CIL. The 60% higher starting salary is the clearest possible market signal that the specialized skillset you will acquire (Commercial Due Diligence) is high-value and immediately monetizable. For ambitious early-career candidates, two years in a dedicated CDD shop often provides a much higher velocity path toward a fund Associate role than a generalized strategy track.

Regarding the risk of specialization, two years of dedicated CDD experience is a massive asset, not a trap. It gives you domain expertise that large firms and funds desperately seek. If you decide to pivot to MBB after two or three years, you are not entering as a generic strategy applicant; you are entering as a specialist hire with demonstrated diligence experience, which can often be a faster track for lateral moves than attempting the generalist route. Monitor, while carrying the strong Deloitte brand, carries the significant risk of being pulled into broader, often less strategic, Deloitte services work, diluting the specific strategy experience you need.

CIL offers better immediate compensation, faster development in a specialized, high-demand area, and a more direct ramp for PE exits. Monitor offers wider optionality, but at the cost of immediate velocity and salary. Given your priorities, CIL gives you the best foundation for maximizing long-term compensation by building a premium, specialized skill set quickly.

Hope this helps with the final decision!

Answer 3

I have to be honest that I would choose the brand.

Primarily because it has a long term effect.

Compensation doesn't matter in the first few years. I know, I did think differently when I was in your shoes as well, but in the big scheme of things it doesn't make a big difference. What matters is how it builds over time and how you manage it yourself.

So choose rather the path that sets you up best for the sort of life and opportunities you're looking for.

You might want to have a chat with a couple of people from both firms to see how they feel about it.

And btw, ongrats!
Cristian

Answer 4

Hi there,

Both are solid offers and there is no wrong choice here, it really comes down to what kind of optionality you want early on. CIL is excellent if you are excited about PE and CDD, as you will get deep reps fast, strong responsibility, very good pay, and very credible exits into PE related roles or other diligence focused teams. Monitor Deloitte is better if you want breadth, brand, and flexibility, especially if you are not fully sure you want to specialize this early and might want to pivot later to MBB or broader strategy roles. If your top priority is compensation and PE exposure, CIL is better. If your priority is keeping doors open across strategy paths while building a strong generalist foundation, Monitor is better.