Hi there,

Good question! In terms of your main point:

Q: Please can you guys weigh in with your BEST opinions on the list of Tier 1 Management Consulting firms versus Tier 2? And also Tier 3?

I believe most people (me included) would consider MBB as the clear Tier 1. The main justification is that they are the largest consulting companies with a main focus on strategy in terms of revenues (more data on that later).

Tier 2 is trickier. When I applied to consulting in Italy (10+ years ago.. feeling old!) I considered as Tier 2 Booz (now Strategy&), Oliver Wyman, Roland Berger and Kearney.

The definition now is a bit more fluid due to the expansion of Big 4 in strategy. Additionally, the geography and industry matter a lot in the definition of a top company. Examples:

• Strategy& can be considered a top player in the Middle East thanks to the Booz legacy, less so in other geographies
• Oliver Wyman can be considered a top player in financial service and has a very good reputation in terms of quality of work in that industry, less so in other sectors

So I don’t think there is an “ultimate” Tier 2 (and as a consequence, Tier 3) list. It really depends on the geography and industry you want to focus on.

Still, with the same question in mind, a few months ago I wrote an article showing the top consulting companies by revenue. Additionally, I added a ranking based on where MBA candidates from some of the top 10 business schools were hired. You can find the article below: 

▶ Top 15 Consulting Firms by Revenues and Prestige

Here is an extract of the “prestige” ranking, based on the 2020 MBA hiring (you can see the full list and revenue data by clicking on the article above):

We can see that MBB are the clear winners based on that.

In terms of the others, if we keep the companies that just do strategy and are not related to Big 4 with their brand name (ie, we don’t consider Accenture, Deloitte, EYP), we end with the same list above for Tier 2 (Strategy&, Kearney, Roland Berger, Oliver Wyman).

This is still an imprecise way to measure prestige as some companies might simply hire fewer MBA candidates than others due to preference or size, but could provide a general orientation of what top MBA candidates consider better for their career at that stage.

Hope this helps.

Francesco

Hi there,

Ok, so, of course, while it may be cliche, remember that Tiers are the “mass” mentality. Remember that you and the best match for you (culture, training, work type, etc.) is its own thing. I'm so glad I worked for a small, not known company called Appian instead of a Big Tech company when I graduated. I learned so much more and truly thrived because of it.

Now, for your Tier question. I personally have not met anyone who thinks anyone other than MBB are in Tier 1. (Seems you have…but I personally haven't).

Interestingly enough, there actually is a debate on 1 of those 3.

So, funny you say the agreement is on those 3 :). I know people who believe Bain should not be considered Tier 1 anymore.

Some view Tier 1 as McKinsey + BCG, as second Tier with Bain on it's own, and then the next Tier (Big 4, etc.)

Currently, I have never heard anyone say any Big 4 is Tier 1. Nor any other non-MBB firm for that matter. Could they eventually be? Perhaps. But not currently.

Remember, this is for strategy consulting, not management consulting, not accounting, not audit, etc.

Hi,

I'll add another perspective that hasn't yet been mentioned by others.

On the job and in the industry, Tier 1 / 2 / 3 is also objectively differentiated by price points - i.e. the price that we charge to clients. This something I got to see when I became more senior.

MBB is known for its price premium, and while there are some clients that will only trust the MBB brand for their most important/complex problems, it is also not uncommon for MBB to lose pitches because of price points - and sometimes these lost projects are actually interesting/cool ones that go to T2 firms.

Hello,

I would say that the answer to this is fairly subjective, and will depend on the region and practice you are looking at. Some firms are better-known in some parts of the world, and have expertise in particular industries - is there a region/industry you are interested in in particular?

You've gotten some great feedback here, but I'll give my additional two cents: when I recruited as a candidate in NA, the rough perception was that MBB was tier 1, the generalist tier 2 would be Oliver Wyman, Deloitte, LEK, E&Y, Accenture, Strategy&. Tier 3 would have been smaller boutique firms.

Please notice that there's a difference between being a global T1/T2/T3 vs. local performance in the market.

For example, Roland Berger is clearly a T1 player in some european markets. One could same the same regarding Strategy& in the Middle East.

But in general T1 is MBB. T2 are global strategy consulting firms. T3 are boutiques that can be in multiple markets, but are far away from having a global presence.

Then you have Big4+Accenture Strategy arms. These are more difficult to judge because their capabilities are not consistent accross the globe. Meaning that in many places they could be considered a strong T2 player. In other places they are not that different from a boutique. In my experience EY-Parthenon is the more consistent in terms of quality (but smaller as its “scope” of projects is not a broad), Strategy& has very strong spikes in some markets but less consistent that EY-P (some places it is closer to former Booz, in other places it is just PwC), and after both comes Monitor Deloitte.

Thanks to Ian for the great comment! 😂😂😂

I've actually not heard of Little B being potentially kicked out of MBB, but I do agree that their growth story and prestige has been less impressive than MB in the last 5 - 7 years.
 

So, the rankings:

1) I think I personally agree with you that MBB is Tier 1;

2) However, you may have heard recruiters in the freelance space talk about consulting opportunities where a Tier 1 firm is listed as the intermediary only to discover that the intermediary is not MBB. It would appear that these recruiters either have a different perspective on ‘Tier 1,' or they are acting like real estate agents who try to sell you a property in a street 2 streets away from Chelsea and conspire to call the area New Chelsea or Chelsea Park to justify their pitch.

In this manner, I have seen Kearney and Oliver Wyman routinely referred to as Tier 1.

3) We are definitely agreed that Big 4 is not Tier 1!

However, there is a particular office of a firm-that-shall-not-be-named with whose colleagues I recently crossed paths. In a friendly context, it must be said. Those colleagues were later introduced as being from a Tier 1 firm which caused me to raise both eyebrows, but I left it at that.

I definitely agree with you that branding is not everything and that most M consultants I have met were, on average, more miserable than the peers at actual Tier 2s (I concede my sampling could be quite skewed), so ‘Tier’ should only be a factor for those laser-focused on exit opportunities in the short-term (my opinion).