MBB vs Other Firms

Hi there,

There’s not a huge difference in the core consulting skills developed at MBB vs. Tier 2 firms, especially in the first year. Both cultivate analytical ability, problem-solving, communication, and efficiency in high-pressure environments.

The main distinctions usually come down to branding, network, and exit opportunities, rather than fundamental skill-building. MBB might offer a slightly more structured training program, larger-scale projects, and access to a more prestigious alumni network, but the day-to-day work—structuring problems, running analyses, synthesizing insights, and presenting recommendations—is very similar across both.

For MBA hires in particular, the skill gap is minimal. A top-tier summer associate at OW, Kearney, or RB would likely perform just as well at MBB. The emphasis on MBB is often about long-term career trajectory and prestige rather than raw competence.

And you’re absolutely right—many consultants successfully transition from Tier 2 to MBB after gaining experience. It’s a well-trodden path, and Tier 2 firms can be a great stepping stone!

Best,

Evelina

Hi,

Very good question. The skillset you acquire is very similar across all the consulting firms (MBB and tier 2). The main differences are 

(i) the industry exposure (MBB tend to work in all the major industries vs. 2nd tier tend to focus on a couple of industries) 

(ii) the size of the customer (MBB focus on the largest customer in each industry vs. 2nd tier also works with mid size players).

Let me know if you have further questions.

Mattijs

Honestly, no difference at all. None.

Assuming similar backgrounds and a short time frame like a summer internship, the difference in capability between an MBB and Tier 2 MBA associate is minimal — aside from possible exposure to different types of projects. However, since top candidates tend to prefer MBB, the talent pool often reflects stronger pedigree and, in some cases, higher relative performance (e.g., top performers who get offers across firms typically choose MBB).

Hey there 😊

Great question—and you're absolutely right: there’s way too little honest discussion about Tier 2 vs. MBB, especially for early career stages.

In the first year, the biggest differences are less about raw capability and more about environment, exposure, and support systems. MBB firms usually have:

💡 Stronger structured training from Day 1—both in problem-solving and client communication.
💡 More “elite” peer group—not necessarily smarter, but super driven, competitive, and fast-paced, which pushes your learning curve.
💡 Higher client expectations, bigger clients, and faster project velocity—which means steeper learning through pressure.
💡 Tighter feedback loops—you’ll hear about your weaknesses every week and be expected to improve fast.
💡 Clearer branding that gives you easier access to top exits, like PE/VC or top corporate strategy roles.

BUT: someone starting at OW, Kearney, or Roland Berger with the right mindset and great mentorship can absolutely catch up or even outperform an MBB peer. And it’s 100% valid to use Tier 2 as a path to MBB or long-term consulting success.

So yes, MBB can supercharge growth early—but it's the person, not the brand, that ultimately determines long-term success 🚀

Let me know if you'd like to chat more about this or get support on switching between them!

Best,
Alessa 💛

Hi there, 

If I were to generalized it, I probably would say that MBB consultants have a bit more advantage due to the scale of the firms and the resources that come along with the scale. The knowledge database, the research team, and other supporting functions can be more resourceful in MBB - which allows the consultants to focus more on driving insights and qualify of the answers, and maybe get more (global) trainings. 

However, I don't think a generalized comparison would be meaningful. At the end of the day, each individual in consulting can have very different experiences due to the cases the individual gets staffed on and the people he/she works with. The learning, development and capability building are highly dependent on case experience. There are T2 consultants who are equally good or even better compared to some MBB peers.

Best,

Emily 

Hi there,

From what I observed firsthand - interning at Kearney and later joining McKinsey full-time - the key differences show up fast in three areas:

1. Client size and project scope: At McKinsey, interns I met were thrown into more complex, high-stakes situations with C-level exposure early. Kearney had great projects too, but typically narrower in scope and with mid-level clients.
2. Pushing into leadership roles: MBB expects you to lead workstreams, drive client conversations, and own parts of the problem earlier. I saw interns at McKinsey doing what full-time consultants did at Tier 2 firms.
3. Development curve: Because of that pressure and exposure, your skills in synthesis, structured thinking, and communication accelerate much faster at MBB - less time on slide-polishing, more on real problem solving. At the same time, you have more mentorship and training available

That said, Tier 2 can be a strong foundation - but MBB sets a higher bar from day one.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi there,

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

• First of all, the difference that people talk about often has more to do with the size of the firm, not the level of expertise or anything else that matters.
• Moreover, I would highly advise anyone to treat other top strategy consulting firms not as a stepping stone, but as a valid path in their own right. A lot of consultants from there have amazing careers, and the day-to-day work is usually very similar.

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

Best,

Hagen