Pierre-Adrien, founder of PrépaStrat and ex-BCG, deciphers the 2023 Strategy Consulting rankings

Rankings of strategy consulting firms are closely scrutinized every year by students and firms alike, who attach great importance to them. In France, Consultor is recognized for its knowledge of the industry and its relationships with the various firms. For these reasons, we decided to interview Pierre-Adrien Justice, founder of PrépaStrat and ex-BCG, to offer us an enlightened deciphering of the 2023 ranking on the attractiveness of strategy consulting firms. Drawing on his experience as a strategy consultant in an MBB and his expertise in helping candidates land the best firms, Pierre-Adrien provides us in this interview with several key elements for correctly analyzing the attractiveness of firms and understanding the trends that emerge from this ranking.

Discover below Pierre-Adrien's complete analysis of Consultor's 2023 ranking of the attractiveness of strategy consulting firms.

Consultor has published two rankings of strategy consulting firms in 2023, one on attractiveness and the other on reputation. Which of the two rankings is more relevant for candidates?

It's interesting to distinguish between the two rankings. In my opinion, the most relevant is the attractiveness ranking, since it directly asks students what they think of the firms, since they answer yes or no to the question "Are you attracted by the prospect of working for this firm? After that, it's always important to look at how the survey was conducted. In the case of attractiveness, 134 out of 522 respondents came from Centrale Supélec, i.e. 25%, which is a far cry from the proportion of Centrale Supélec students, and even engineers, among candidates joining a strategy consulting firm. The vast majority of students who join consulting firms still come from business schools, which calls into question the relevance of the panel surveyed and the responses obtained. The bottom line is that rankings are rarely neutral, and there are biases to be taken into account. But once you've said that and you've got the right reading grid, they're still good indicators of trends.

What is your reaction to the results of the 2023 ranking on the attractiveness of strategy consulting firms? Is this ranking in line with what you observe of your candidates' choices at PrépaStrat?

Yes, the Consultor ranking on attractiveness confirms the perception we have of the market at PrépaStrat and what we can observe in the choice of our candidates. Unsurprisingly, the top three MBBs stand out from the other firms, with McKinsey and BCG ahead of Bain. BCG is slightly ahead of McKinsey, which may have been penalized by recent scandals, particularly in France. Behind them are the Top 6 firms, with Roland Berger and Oliver Wyman. The surprise is the absence of Kearney in this ranking, which is perhaps absent at the origin of the survey, or perhaps suffers from a lack of recognition in engineering schools, particularly at Centrale Supélec. In any case, Roland Berger and Oliver Wyman generally stand out from Kearney in the candidates' choices. EY-Parthenon closes the Top 6 in the absence of Kearney. EY's Strategy Consulting division enjoys a high level of popularity, certainly boosted by the fact that it belongs to EY, which is widely recognized in business schools. Finally, there are the more specialized firms such as Advancy, Simon-Kucher and LEK. These are very good firms, which candidates will choose for other, more personal criteria: types of assignments, specialties, work-life balance, fit with the teams during interviews. In the end, this ranking is fairly representative of what we observe at PrépaStrat, especially for the top five firms.

See also : Strategy consulting firms

And what do you think of other top-ranked firms such as BNP CIB, Accuracy and Eight Advisory? They're not necessarily pure players in strategy consulting?

So, yes, it's rather surprising to find firms like BNP CIB, Accuracy or Eight Advisory in this ranking, as they are not pure players. Strategy consulting is not really their core business. However, in this ranking these firms still seem quite attractive, sometimes even more so than some of the major players in strategy consulting. Once again, this demonstrates the fierce competition between firms to outperform their rivals and attract the best talent.

The rankings show that the top six firms are maintaining high acceptance rates on their offers, despite a general decline. What factors, in your opinion, contribute to the continued appeal of these firms, particularly MBBs?

For MBBs, there are several reasons why they remain at the top of the strategy consulting game. First, there's the power of the name, whether it's McKinsey, BCG or Bain. The name of these firms on your CV serves you for your entire career, and that's really reserved for MBBs. No other firm has so much power in its name. After this career prestige, there's also the social prestige for students who wish to pursue the path of excellence they began in high school, followed by the "prépa" and finished in the best schools. Then there's the financial aspect, with higher remuneration than at other firms, close to the €70,000 entry package. Last but not least, students also want to continue their training, and MBBs are perceived as the firms best placed to help you pursue your professional development, thanks to highly structured and hierarchical learning processes.

See also: MBB, undisputed leaders in strategy consulting ad vitam aeternam?

EY-Parthenon's attractiveness rate remains fairly stable, whereas it seems to have fallen for the other firms. EY's strategy consulting arm has the advantage of a tightly-knit team and a purely strategic positioning. Do you see a rise in the attractiveness of the Big Four compared with the historical players in strategy consulting?

There's clearly a rise in the attractiveness of the Big Four's Strategy Consulting branches. I'd say it started in 2015-2016, and over the last 10 years there's been a nice progression. These firms are capitalizing on their method, their reputation and the pool of clients they have with their other auditing and consulting activities. They have grown strongly thanks to takeovers of long-established strategy consulting firms. Parthenon was bought by EY, Booz & Allen was bought by PwC, which became Strategy&, and Monitor, a firm founded by Michael Porter, was bought by Deloitte. This external growth has enabled them to expand rapidly in this market, and their historical reputation in auditing and consulting activities gives them a certain legitimacy with students. What's more, the firms are trying to really separate their strategy consulting activities from the rest of their audit and management consulting activities, so as to be able to position themselves on purely strategic assignments and compete head-on with the historic strategy consulting players.

Only 25% of those surveyed are considering strategy consulting as a priority upon leaving school, a sign of a lack of attractiveness and/or increased competition with other industries such as tech and start-ups. How does this influence strategy consulting firms' efforts to attract top talent, and what unique aspects make consulting still so attractive?

In fact, there has been a slight decline in the overall attractiveness of strategy consulting to school leavers. Start-ups and tech are much more attractive than they used to be, but there are also elements intrinsic to the attractiveness of strategy consulting firms that need to be improved. I'm thinking in particular of all the internal measures put in place to ensure a better work-life balance and less stringent management methods. Externally, with students, the firms are also implementing numerous actions to attract talent. In schools, consultants are out in force to present their profession and the advantages of their firm. Off-campus, the firms, and in particular the MBBs, organize lavish events to show off to students. For example, every year BCG organizes a BCG Inside event at the Hôtel Intercontinental in Paris to attract the best students, who are selected on the basis of their applications.

Read also : Top 5 reasons to join a strategy consulting firm

CSR and social commitment are ranked last in terms of attractiveness to students. At a time when firms are increasingly demonstrating their commitment to CSR and ESG issues, how do you explain this result? How do you see the industry's approach to CSR evolving, and its role in the future attractiveness of strategy consulting firms?

CSR is an increasingly important criterion for students, and we're seeing this more and more at PrépaStrat among the candidates we support. But in reality, students who are really interested in these subjects tend to choose firms specializing in CSR and pure environmental issues. Strategy consulting is still quite general, and students are fully aware of this. Today, no firm can guarantee its consultants regular assignments in these areas. And it's not necessarily that they don't want to do it, but there's also a business reality. Companies are not yet ready to pay high prices for CSR or environmental assignments. And large strategy consulting firms are expensive. As a result, they don't take on many purely CSR or ESG assignments. However, more and more traditional strategy consulting assignments include CSR or ESG criteria. So there's nothing there either. But in the final analysis, it's a bit like the cat biting its own tail: demand from companies for this type of assignment remains low, so firms don't do many of them and don't offer many to consultants, and students are aware of this. Hence the results obtained in this ranking. This should change in the future.

Read also : The role of strategy consulting in sustainability and CSR

As a final word, what advice would you give candidates to help them choose the best firms to apply to? Finally, is looking at the rankings a good approach?

As a final word, I advise you to adopt a consultant's posture when analyzing the rankings of strategy consulting firms. Cross-reference them, compare them, look at averages over the last few years and not just the firm's position in the most recent ranking. Generally speaking, I'd recommend going for the most prestigious firms for the advantages they bring: McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Roland Berger, Oliver Wyman, Kearney. Then, for the other Tier 2 firms, choose according to more personal criteria, in particular a firm where you feel most at home. Finally, take a look at other more specialized Tier 3 firms, generally founded by former MBBs. I'm thinking in particular of Nova Consulting, which specializes in sports and culture. These are smaller boutiques that offer other advantages, such as faster and greater accountability, as well as the opportunity to develop your skills in subjects that really interest you.

Want to join a strategy consulting firm?

Then join us and be part of the 90% of our candidates who integrate a TOP 6 every year. PrepaStrat is the first interview preparation program for strategy consulting firms, with :

• 6 years of expertise, we're the oldest player in strategy consulting interview preparation
• 6 bootcamps per year, comprising 35 hours of training over 5 days
• 1 referent coach from an MBB for each supported candidate
• 100% of our coaches are Senior Consultants and Managers from McKinsey, BCG and Bain
• 6 online training modules to prepare you for interviews and understand what Strategy Consulting is all about
• 50+ corrected case studies that have already fallen into the hands of top strategy consulting firms
• Aim for excellence and join the top strategy consulting firms with Prépa Strat

Discover our bootcampour on-the-job interviews and our e-learning platform !