why is strategy& considered "higher tier" than other big 4 strategy firms?

Question

Hey there, I am about to apply for a position in strategy consulting in the DACH region. from what i've read, strategy& is considered tier 2 (at same level with OW, RB), whereas EY Parthenon or Deloitte Monitor is considered tier 3?

What exactly is the reason for that? Is it that Booz & Company had higher ranking/status compared before being acquired by PwC compared to OC&C (acquired by EY) and Monitor (acquired by Deloitte)? Or is there any other reason?

Thank you!

Answer 1

Hi there,

Good question. I would consider as main reasons the following:

Stronger brand of the company acquired (Booz was a pretty respected name, stronger than Parthenon and Monitor)
Separation of the brand from the general Big 4 one (unlike Monitor Deloitte and EYP, Strategy& has a separate brand not directly related to PwC)
Top positioning in some markets (mainly the Middle East - Strategy& is perceived even stronger than Bain there)

Having said that, Strategy& had several employees leaving after the merger which affected the company. The perception of the brand is also country-dependent.

Best,

Francesco

Answer 2

Hello!

I would agree with you overall, although this also can vary region by region, so careful there.

The reason behind it is that before being integrated in the Big4, Booz was indeed a strategy consulting company by itself, with it´s raking and status.

Hope it helps!

Cheers,

Clara

Answer 3

Hi there,

You're right in regards to the positive impact Booz's status had prior to the acquisition.

That said, these things are complicated. Why x company is superior is often due to a number of factors. That said, generally, a company that specializes will do better than one that doesn't. You're asking about strategy consulting rankings. The Big4 do a lot of things, i.e. they don't specialize but rather operate in many spaces (implementation, tech, etc). Strategy& does solely strategy consulting and is therefore better positioned to take a lead in strategy consulting rankings!

Answer 4

Hey there,

great question and you gave part of the answer already (Booz). In addition, S& also clearly positioned itself closer to MBB than the other Big 4 "strategy arms". You can see that in the salary they are offering (competetive to MBB, in some cases even higher in TC) and the projects they are doing (clear strategic focus).

Let me know if you need help in the preperation.

Best

Torben

Answer 5

There are a few different reasons for this.

In general:

Brand Affinity (prestige) - clearly there is a difference in perception in the market between MBB and Tier 2. S& benefits from the halo effect from Booz
Scale - S& has a notable presence in all major markets on par with MBB.
Types of clients - not hugely dissimilar from MBB on average. Varies a lot by region as S&'s perception is rather different in the UK vs SEA vs Middle East - due to the historic brand benefit from Booz & Co.

However, its position does vary a lot by region. It has retained highest prestige in markets where either Booz was early into the market or the level of integration with PwC is low. This tends to be the Middle East, the US and DACH followed by W. Europe and Asia.

Answer 6

Although Strategy& is owned by PwC, its entity and services are completely different and sometimes even compete with... (ganze Antwort lesen)

Although Strategy& is owned by PwC, its entity and services are completely different and sometimes even compete with PwC advisory.It still not clear if the ban extends to Strate... (ganze Antwort lesen)