The 7 types of case interviews in consulting: the complete guide

This article covers the 7 case types in detail, common mistakes, differences between firms, and practical tips. To start with structure from the first minute, download our free Frameworks & Issue Trees Guide here (PDF): an introduction to the 4 core frameworks (profitability, market, investment, pricing) and to building issue trees with MECE logic.

The 7 Main Case Types

These are the 7 case types that appear in 95%+ of strategy consulting interviews. Each has its own logic, its typical traps, and its optimal approach.

1. Profitability

The most frequent type. The client has a profit problem — margin decline, unexpected losses, progressive deterioration. Your task: break down revenue and costs, segment to find the root cause, and propose a concrete solution. The key is segmentation — by product, geography, channel, customer type — not looking at averages.

2. Market Sizing

Estimate the size of a market, product demand, or volume of something. There is no data: everything is built with logical assumptions. Method matters more than the final number — what counts is the structure of your reasoning and your ability to defend each assumption when the interviewer asks.

3. Market Entry

The client wants to enter a new market — geographic, product, or segment. You must assess market attractiveness, competition, barriers to entry, and critically whether the company has an ability to win. A large market isn't enough if you lack the capabilities to compete.

4. Pricing

The client needs to set, change, or defend its pricing strategy. It could be a launch, a competitive reaction, or an optimization. The key: understand elasticity, competitive positioning, and perceived value. A luxury product is not the same as a commodity.

5. Operations & Strategy

Operational efficiency, supply chain, capacity, or corporate strategy problems. The candidate must identify the real bottleneck before proposing solutions. "Improve efficiency" or "digitize" without deep process analysis won't convince any interviewer.

6. Investment Evaluation

The client evaluates whether to invest in a project, technology, or initiative. The key: when the return is intangible (customer service improvement, employer branding, digital transformation), the candidate must quantify it for comparison. "I've seen brilliant candidates dismiss an investment because 'it has no clear ROI' — when the real skill is assigning a numerical value to the intangible benefit. If you improve customer service and reduce churn by 2%, that does have a number."

7. M&A (Mergers & Acquisitions)

The client is evaluating buying, merging with, or selling a company. You need to evaluate strategic fit, synergies (revenue and cost), integration risks, and valuation. The typical mistake: analyzing the numbers without questioning the strategic "why" behind the deal.

If you want to dive deeper into how to approach each case type, which frameworks to use, and practice with solved exercises, we recommend the book Crack The Frameworks.

Interviewer-Led vs Candidate-Led

Interviewer-Led

The interviewer drives the conversation. They give you the problem, ask specific questions, and guide you through a logical sequence. You solve each question, but you don't choose the path. It's more like a guided conversation than a free analysis.

Candidate-Led

You lead. The interviewer gives you the problem and you decide how to approach it: what questions to ask, what structure to use, in what order to analyze. You have more freedom but also more responsibility — if your structure is weak, it shows immediately.

The reality: there are no differences in case type — a profitability is a profitability in any format. What varies is the tendency in delivery style. McKinsey has historically tended to structure the conversation more, while BCG and Bain typically give the candidate more room. But this depends on the individual interviewer and the case type, not on firm policy. Recruiting protocols are increasingly defined across all firms — what used to be personal style now has more structure. In my 9 years at Bain, my own style depended on the case type and the candidate's entry level.

Most Common Mistakes When Solving a Case

Not segmenting enough. The most common mistake. Looking at the average margin or the global figure isn't enough — you need to understand where the real problems are. In a revenue drop: which clients, which geographies, which channels? In a cost increase: at what point in the chain, what type of cost? The candidate who segments well reaches the problem in 5 minutes. The one who looks at averages can spend 20 minutes going nowhere.

Weak structure from the start. What kills isn't a bad calculation but not having a clear logical path. The candidate needs an issue tree that allows solving the problem step by step, clearly identifying all missing data points. If you can't reconstruct every assumption when the interviewer asks "how did you get to that number?", that's a fail.

Ignoring the strategic "why." Analyzing only the numbers without questioning the underlying motivation. In an acquisition, this leads to recommending a deal that adds up on paper but destroys value in practice. In a market entry, it means evaluating only the opportunity without asking whether the company has a real ability to win: a large market doesn't mean a good entry if you lack the capabilities, brand, or distribution network to compete.

Failing to quantify the intangible. Dismissing an investment or initiative because the return seems intangible. Customer service improvement, employer branding, digital transformation — all of this can be quantified. The key: assign a numerical value to the benefit to make it comparable.

Generic solutions without diagnosis. Proposing "improve efficiency" or "digitize" without deep process analysis is firing without aiming. Before proposing solutions, identify the real bottleneck. And treating price as always "adjustable" without measuring its impact on demand is the same type of error: context matters.

A framework that looks good but isn't. The quintessential cross-cutting mistake. Having an issue tree isn't enough. What matters is that it's the right issue tree — that the branches are mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive, and attack the real problem. At Bain we saw this constantly: candidates who presented a structure and moved to analysis without validating whether their structure was good, satisfied by the mere fact of having one.

Material Used in Cases

Napkin Cases

The purest format: a napkin (or a blank sheet), a pen, and a verbal problem. No written data, no charts. You build everything yourself. This format evaluates your ability to structure from scratch and do quick mental math.

Cases With Extensive Data

The interviewer hands you tables, charts, exhibits with real or simulated data. You need to read quickly, identify what's relevant, and integrate it into your analysis. The trap: getting lost in the data and forgetting the original question.

Written Format

You receive a document with the case context — sometimes several pages — and you have limited time to read it before the discussion. This evaluates your ability to synthesize under time pressure.

Group Cases

Several candidates solve the same case together. Here they evaluate leadership, collaboration, and communication in addition to analytical ability. Less common at MBB but they appear at some offices and in specific rounds.

How to Recognize Case Type Quickly

The first 30 seconds of a case determine your structure. If you recognize the type quickly, your framework will be more precise. Three indicators:

1. Keywords in the Prompt

• ●"Margins have dropped", "profits", "losses" → Profitability
• ●"How many", "estimate", "market size" → Market Sizing
• ●"Enter", "expand into", "new market" → Market Entry
• ●"Price", "rate", "charge" → Pricing
• ●"Efficiency", "process", "capacity" → Operations
• ●"Invest in", "evaluate project", "ROI" → Investment Evaluation
• ●"Acquire", "merge", "buy" → M&A

2. The Type of Question

• ●"What's happening?" → Diagnosis (profitability, operations)
• ●"Should they do it?" → Decision (M&A, entry, investment)
• ●"How much?" → Estimation (market sizing, pricing)

3. Industry Context

Some sectors have more frequent case types. Retail and consumer: profitability and pricing. Technology: entry and market sizing. Healthcare and pharma: M&A and pricing. But any type can appear in any sector.

Differences Between Firms

McKinsey

Historically more interviewer-led. They give you the problem and guide you through a sequence of questions. The format forces you to respond with precision at each step. Less room to explore, but less risk of getting lost if your structure is weak.

BCG

Mixed format that varies by office and interviewer. They typically start candidate-led and then dive deeper into specific areas. They place significant weight on the creativity of your approach and your ability to generate original insights.

Bain

Tendency toward candidate-led. They give you the problem and expect you to lead. They highly value the ability to structure and communicate a clear recommendation with analytical backing. In my 9 years at Bain, the best candidates were those who could defend their recommendation with data and logic, not those who had the prettiest framework.

But: these are patterns, not rules. I've seen completely open McKinsey cases. I've seen ultra-structured Bain cases. The truth is that recruiting protocols are increasingly standardized across all firms, but within that protocol, each interviewer brings their own style. What matters is that you're flexible: you can work in both formats.

Beyond MBB: What to Expect at Other Strategy Firms

Case types are universal — a profitability is a profitability at any firm. What varies is the delivery format, sector emphasis, and volume of material.

Kearney follows a process very similar to MBB — mixed format with a heavy emphasis on operations, procurement, and supply chain (their historical specialty). In final rounds for MBA candidates, they may include a 60-minute written case where you prepare a PowerPoint recommendation from delivered materials. If you prepare for MBB, you're prepared for Kearney.

Oliver Wyman has strong sector specialization: banking, insurance, and aviation represent the majority of their business. Cases reflect these sectors with specific vocabulary (premiums, claims, capital requirements). Candidate-led format, calculation-intensive. In the final round ("Super Day"), they include a written case: 30 minutes to analyze a dossier + 30 minutes to present 3-5 slides. They also have an eliminatory online numerical test before interviews.

Roland Berger uses a "Super Day" format (both rounds on the same day), candidate-led, with strong emphasis on European industry: automotive, energy, manufacturing. The distinctive element: they include a group case exercise in the final round (3-6 candidates solving together), something that doesn't typically appear at MBB. They also have a 90-minute online reasoning test as the first filter.

Strategy& (PwC) combines strategy cases with questions about implementation and organizational transformation — a reflection of their integration with PwC. Candidate-led format, 3-4 interviews of ~45 min. Key difference from MBB: fit and genuine interest in the firm carry more weight — interviewers actively filter candidates who use Strategy& as an MBB "plan B."

L.E.K. Consulting is known for quantitatively intensive cases, with a strong orientation toward private equity due diligence and life sciences. More calculation, more data, less storytelling. In the final round: a 60-minute written case with a 40-50 slide dossier that you must analyze and convert into an 8-10 slide recommendation. Many offices have a GMAT-style numerical pre-screening.

Deloitte Strategy & Operations has two profiles: Monitor Deloitte (the pure strategy arm, inherited from Monitor Group) uses MBB-like candidate-led format — market entry, M&A, growth. The broader Deloitte S&O tends to be interviewer-led with more data (3-5 exhibits per case). First round may include an assessment center with a group case (4-6 candidates), an individual case, and a behavioral interview — structurally different from MBB's 1:1 format.

The key takeaway: outside MBB, processes are less standardized across offices and you're more likely to encounter variations (written cases, group exercises, assessment centers). Prepare for flexibility — and if you prepare well for the most demanding firms, you have 90% of what you'll face at any strategy firm covered.

The Role of Second Rounds

The second round doesn't change the case types — they're still profitability, market sizing, M&A, etc. What changes is the depth, the ambiguity, and the expectations.

In the first round, they evaluate whether you can solve a structured case. In the second round, they expect you to handle ambiguity: problems with multiple possible answers, incomplete data, trade-offs with no clear solution.

Second-round interviewers tend to be more senior (Partners, Managing Directors). Their standard is different: they don't look for you to solve the case "correctly" — they look for you to think like a consultant who's already working with the client.

It's also where fit carries more weight. In the first round, a perfect case can compensate for mediocre fit. In the second, you need both.

Frequently Asked Questions

What case type is the most frequent?expand_more

Profitability, by far. It appears in roughly 40% of interviews. Market sizing is the second most common. But you need to master all types — you can't predict which one you'll get.

Can I use the same framework for all types?expand_more

No. Each type has its own logic. A profitability framework doesn't work for a market sizing, and vice versa. What you can transfer is the discipline of structuring: always start with a hypothesis, break down the problem, and prioritize.

How many cases should I practice of each type?expand_more

At least 5-8 of each main type. More in profitability and market sizing because they're the most common. But quality matters more than quantity — 5 cases analyzed well are worth more than 20 done superficially.

What happens if I don't recognize the case type?expand_more

You don't fall into a void. Ask the interviewer for clarification — it's perfectly valid to ask questions at the start. Better to ask and start well than to assume and structure poorly. And remember: many cases combine types. A market entry can include market sizing and profitability.

Should I practice a specific distribution of case types?expand_more

Yes, but there's no fixed distribution — it depends on each firm, each office, and each round. The important thing is to practice all 7 types, with emphasis on profitability and market sizing as they're the most common. But you can encounter any type in any interview.

Do firms outside MBB use the same case types?expand_more

Yes. The 7 types (profitability, market sizing, M&A, etc.) are universal. What changes is the delivery format and emphasis. Kearney is practically identical to MBB. Oliver Wyman leans more on sector-specific cases. L.E.K., calculation-intensive. But the underlying logic is the same — if you prepare well for MBB, you're prepared for any strategy firm.

Your Next Step

Now that you understand the 7 types, the next step is to practice with the right tools:

First: download the free resources. We have reference frameworks, templates, and practice guides available for immediate download — at no cost. Visit our free resources page and start today.

Second: master the frameworks for each type. Each case type has its optimal framework. In the book Crack The Frameworks you'll find the specific frameworks for profitability, market sizing, M&A and all other types, with solved exercises and detailed solutions. See the book →

Third: practice with structure and feedback. Once you have the foundation, you need real feedback. The Prep Platform includes cases of each type with detailed solutions, performance evaluation, and a clear roadmap from zero to offer.