Questions to Ask Your Consulting Interviewer in 2026

Eighteen instructions on questions to ask, across seventeen firms

Most firms encourage questions and specify almost nothing about them. The exceptions are the whole value of the table. Deloitte holds two rows because its case page and its general interview page give different instructions, so eighteen rows cover seventeen firms.

The only firm that publishes where to ask

Charles River Associates is alone in giving a placement rule, and it splits questions by their subject rather than by their quality.

On the case: "If you have questions about the case study, ask these during the interview." On the firm: "Generally, we advise candidates to reserve questions about the role and CRA for the end of case interviews." And on a different interview type entirely: "We encourage candidates to also ask questions throughout behavioral interviews."

Porsche Consulting is the only other firm that fixes a moment, and it fixes a stage rather than a minute: at the final interview with your potential supervisor, "Take this opportunity to ask questions. After all, you also have to be sure that Porsche Consulting is the right employer for you."

Everyone else in the table leaves placement to you. Given that two firms publish rules and they do not conflict, asking about the firm at the end of a case is the safest default across the whole set.

L.E.K. against Deloitte, on how many questions to ask

The clearest published disagreement in this corpus is about quantity, and it matters because it sits inside the case rather than around it.

L.E.K. publishes seven numbered steps for working a case, and the fourth is "Ask questions", glossed as "Clarify issues and scope; ask for additional information you need". The second step also concerns questions: "Jot down preliminary ideas, formulate intelligent questions and devise a coherent approach". Two of seven steps, which is 29 percent of the published sequence, are about forming questions.

Deloitte publishes the opposite emphasis on its case page: "Ask questions, but don't use them as a crutch. While it's important to ask clarifying questions, avoid relying on them too heavily. We're interested in how you connect the dots when solving the problem."

Both are live, both are official, and neither publishes a threshold. What Deloitte does elsewhere resolves part of the tension. Its general interview page encourages preparation: "Prepare a list of thoughtful questions in advance and try to think of an interview as more of a two-way dialogue rather than a one-way dissection of your resume."

So the firm is bounding one kind of question, the one that outsources analysis, and encouraging another, the one that interrogates the job. Read together, the instruction is to bring questions about the firm and to earn your questions about the case.

The three things IBM says you may clarify

Only one firm publishes a list of what a case question may legitimately cover. IBM's application process page says: "Don't be afraid to ask the interviewer for help if you get stuck by asking clarifying questions about the case, client, and environment."

Three objects, named. That is narrower than it looks and more useful than a general permission, because it excludes asking for the answer while permitting questions about the setting.

The one first-hand account we have of this working comes from a named MBA student writing on his own school's blog in 2015. Zhe Huang, then at Tuck, wrote: "When you get stuck, ask the right questions. Interviewers are supposed to help you get there." He also described abandoning a standard approach mid-case after being cut off, and testing hypotheses aloud instead. One person, one campaign, ten years ago, with offers from McKinsey and BCG Shanghai. An anecdote, labeled as one.

The publisher SHL adds the one question nobody thinks to ask, about the instruction rather than the content: "Don't be afraid to ask if you are unsure about what you have to do." Its candidate page also notes that assessors are watching your performance on the exercise rather than your comprehension of the brief.

One question to ask, with a published right to an answer

BCG's page on AI in recruiting publishes the only named right in the corpus. The question and the answer are both printed: "Can I learn more about how BCG used AI in my application? Yes. Transparency is central to our Talent Promise. You can ask your recruiter for details about how AI may have supported the review of your application."

The same page states the boundary that makes the question worth asking: "AI is never used to make hiring decisions at BCG. All decisions are made by experienced BCG recruiters and hiring managers."

Two adjacent rights appear on the firm's candidate FAQ. Engagement continues past the process: "you will have opportunities to engage with our consultants throughout and after the interview process." And feedback is available conditionally: "If you have progressed to the interview stage, you're welcome to reach out to your recruiting contact to request feedback."

KPMG Canada publishes the two most practical questions in the whole set, and they are administrative rather than impressive: "Ask questions, including the hiring timeline and next steps" and "Thank the interviewer and ask for a business card or email address." Nobody else names a specific question to ask.

A published refusal, and why it helps

Strategy& UK is the only firm in the corpus that publishes what it will not answer: "Please be mindful that our recruitment team will not answer questions where answers are available on the Strategy& careers webpage. The team does not have any further information with regards to application opening or closing dates, so please refrain from sending enquiries accordingly."

Two things are excluded by name. Anything the site already answers, and application dates. The page does not say a question costs you anything, so the honest reading is that it will simply go unanswered.

This is more useful than it first appears, because it names the failure mode for every firm in the table. A question whose answer sits on the careers page tells your interviewer you did not read it. Guidehouse says the same thing from the positive side: questions should "demonstrate an interest and understanding in the work we do."

Simon-Kucher publishes the far end of the permitted range, through a named recruiting lead in Frankfurt: "Candidates are welcome to ask thoughtful questions, challenge perspectives, and actively contribute to the discussion. We particularly value candidates who demonstrate genuine interest, reflectiveness, and a willingness to engage in discussions on equal footing." Challenging a perspective is explicitly allowed at one firm and unmentioned at the other sixteen.

Five questions to ask, each backed by a published instruction

Nothing below was invented for this page. Each item is the question a published instruction implies, with the firm that published it.

1. What are the next steps and the timeline? KPMG Canada names both in writing. It is the one question a firm has told you to ask.
2. How did AI support the review of my application? BCG publishes the right to ask this and the promise of an answer from your recruiter. Do not assume it transfers to other firms.
3. What does this team actually work on right now? Deloitte names culture, specific projects and the team as fair game. Guidehouse asks that the question show you understand the work.
4. Can I have feedback? SHL's instruction is to ask if it is not offered. BCG answers yes once you have reached the interview stage, through your recruiting contact.
5. Is there anything about the exercise itself I should clarify? SHL permits it, IBM names the three objects, and Accenture's own recruiter writes that assessors welcome it because it shows engagement.

What none of these questions substitutes for is the work inside the case. Our structure rubric weights Coverage 45 out of 100 and Separation 25, which is precisely the ground a candidate is trying to borrow when a clarifying question becomes the crutch Deloitte warns about. Those weights are ours, read from our own code, and no firm publishes a comparable scheme. The reasoning is on how an answer is assessed and the drills run free and without an account from the tools page.

If you face a consulting interviewer with no question

No firm in our corpus publishes what having no question costs, so treat that risk as unmeasured. What is published removes the situation anyway. KPMG Canada names next steps and timeline in writing, which makes that question available to every candidate in every interview, whatever happened in the hour before it. SHL's instruction to ask for feedback when it is not offered works the same way: the instruction exists, so acting on it cannot be out of place.

That is a floor of two questions nobody has to invent, and the five above are the full list this page can defend, each carrying the firm that published the instruction behind it. Arriving with none is recoverable in one sentence, because both of those questions fit any point in any process.

What the firms do not supply is a question tuned to the person across the table. A question that suits a partner reads differently from one put to an associate two years in, and no firm in our corpus publishes guidance on the difference. The usable substitute comes from Deloitte, which names specific projects and the team as fair ground: ask about work the person in front of you has actually done, which scales with seniority on its own and needs no published rule.

What no firm publishes about the questions to ask

Five gaps, and one of them changes how much any of this matters.

No firm publishes how many questions to ask. One quantity word exists in the whole corpus: WTW says "ask plenty of questions about the role, our business and our culture." No number appears anywhere.

No firm publishes whether questions are scored. Capgemini Invent puts questions to assessors inside its assessment day and never says whether they count.

No firm publishes where the crutch begins. Deloitte warns against relying on clarifying questions too heavily and gives no line.

No firm publishes what a bad question costs. Strategy& UK says an unnecessary one goes unanswered, which is the closest anyone comes.

And no firm publishes what the answer to BCG's AI question actually contains. The right to ask exists, the substance does not, and no response time is attached. For the behavioral half of the same conversation see case interview fit questions, for the closing note afterwards see the consulting thank-you email, and for the sequences these interviews sit inside see the consulting interview process.