Consulting Interview Response Times 2026, Firm by Firm

Sixteen published clocks, thirteen firms

Each row below is a number a firm printed on its own site, with what the number measures. Several firms publish more than one, so sixteen rows cover twelve firms; Bridgespan is the thirteenth and it publishes dates instead, in its own section further down.

Four weeks is twenty working days. Dividing twenty by two gives ten, so the slowest published promise is ten times the fastest. No central value exists, and inventing one would misdescribe every firm in the table.

Three firms in the same market disagree on the same measurement. After interviews, EY-Parthenon publishes one week, Deloitte United States publishes one week to a written offer, and KPMG United States publishes two weeks to a decision.

Roland Berger, four pages, four numbers

One firm publishes the same delay four times and never the same way. Reading all four together is the only way to get it right.

The five-day figure measures something different from the other three, and treating all four as one contradiction would be wrong. The London posting commits to a human reading your file: "Every application is reviewed by a member of our (human) recruitment team, with applications reviewed daily and typically within five days of submission." Reviewed is not replied to.

The three that do measure contact run from two to four weeks. The FAQ says three weeks, the tips page says about two to four, and the Netherlands page says usually two. The same FAQ publishes the only end-to-end figure in the corpus: "In general, the process will take around six to eight weeks (from submitting your application to signing the contract)."

So the honest answer for this firm is a range of two to four weeks for contact, with a five-day commitment to being read, and six to eight weeks to a signature. Any single number attributed to it would be wrong on at least two of its own pages.

Two dated calendars, and the day counts

Bridgespan publishes the only fully dated calendars in our corpus, one per role, for the 2026 cycle. We counted the days by hand.

From 10 August to 15 September: August has 31 days, so 31 minus 10 gives 21 days to the end of the month, plus 15 gives 36 days. From 17 September to 6 November: September has 30 days, so 13 days to the end of the month, plus 31 for October, plus 6, gives 50 days.

Thirty-six days for one role and 50 for the other is a gap of 14 days, inside one firm, in one document. The deadline-to-invitation wait is nearly identical, at 7 days and 8 days. The extra fortnight sits later in the process, and the firm publishes the dates without the reason.

Yale's career office describes the same shape from the school side for the sector as a whole: "interviews occur about 2-4 weeks after deadline, and offers made shortly thereafter." For first-year MBA internships it reports a much tighter decision: offers "extended within one day to one week."

When the clock starts

Two firms make applying early worth nothing, and they say so.

OC&C indexes its feedback on the vacancy rather than on you: "we will review application results and decide who we will invite to 1st stage interview after the close date of the vacancy. You can expect to receive feedback within 3 weeks of the closing date." Two candidates applying a month apart hear on the same day.

Bridgespan is blunter: "Application review will happen after application deadline. Please note, no applications will be reviewed before this time."

Two firms replace the wait with a screen instead of a date, and a third replaces it with an event. BCG publishes eleven application statuses in its candidate portal and no delay at any stage. Analysis Group publishes the same arrangement: "You may log in at any time using your username and password to check the status of your application. Regardless of the outcome, you will receive a follow-up email from our recruiting team once your application has been reviewed." West Monroe attaches its contact to an event rather than a date, saying the recruiter reaches out once the interview team has debriefed.

And one firm publishes a number and a disclaimer on the same page. EY promises an assessment invitation "within one business day" and also writes "Each application is processed individually. Our response times may vary."

The only published rule about a follow-up email

EY's interview tips page carries the single sentence in this corpus that tells you when a follow-up is premature: "And don't call in two days asking about a decision if we said we would be back in touch in, say, two weeks."

That turns the question into arithmetic. If a firm published a date, the date governs. If it did not, EY's other instruction applies: "Don't let too much time pass without making that connection." The firm does not define too much time.

The same firm publishes the one deadline that runs against you rather than the firm. Its assessment FAQ says the invitation comes from an SHL address and that "If you do not receive the assessment invitation within 12 business hours of submitting your application, please contact [email protected]." It also sets your own clock: "please complete the assessment within 48 hours of receiving the assessment invitation."

Dividing 48 by 12 gives 4, so the candidate has four times as long to answer as the firm has to write. That asymmetry is the one place in the corpus where a published delay comes with a named address to complain to.

Four steps for a follow-up email when the date passes

The steps below follow from the published material above. Each names the firm whose page supports it. They settle what the email contains rather than how it reads. For the wording itself, a sample follow-up email after an interview sits on our thank-you page as a five-line note assembled from published firm rules.

1. Find your firm's number first. Thirteen of them published one. A follow-up sent before that date has no basis, and EY says so in writing.
2. Check whether a portal answers the question. BCG publishes eleven statuses and Analysis Group offers a login. If the screen says the application is under review, an email asking whether it is under review adds nothing.
3. Work out which clock you are on. At OC&C and Bridgespan the clock starts at the vacancy close date, so count from there rather than from your submission.
4. Ask for feedback rather than for news. Once you have reached interviews, BCG says "you're welcome to reach out to your recruiting contact to request feedback", and KPMG UK offers the same option to unsuccessful candidates. SHL's advice to candidates is to ask if it is not offered.

One first-hand data point marks the bottom of the range. A named candidate who reached a Roland Berger final round in Chicago in December 2016 reports that the offer came "on the next business day." One person, one office, nine years ago, at the firm that today publishes four different figures and none of them is a day.

What the wait cannot be used for is re-running the interview in your head. The parts that decide a case are whether the answer came first and whether the risk was named, which our synthesis rubric weights as Answer first 35 out of 100 and Risk 20. 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.

What no firm publishes about the wait

Six gaps, and the first is the one candidates feel most.

Almost nobody publishes the timing of a rejection. Two firms commit in both directions, BCG Platinion with a reply "within a week to advise you either way" and OC&C with feedback three weeks after the close date. The other eleven mostly time the road to an offer.

Nobody publishes what happens after the last stage at Deloitte UK. The firm gives four weeks after the online assessment and four weeks after the job simulation, then no figure for the final stage assessment.

Nobody publishes a response time for a feedback request. BCG and KPMG UK both publish the right and neither publishes the delay.

Nobody explains the fourteen-day difference between Bridgespan's two calendars. The dates are published and the reason is not.

Nobody defines too much time. EY names the concept and leaves it open.

And nobody says whether a follow-up hurts. EY publishes the only rule and it is about being premature rather than about a penalty. For the note that goes with it see consulting thank-you emails, for the round structures these delays sit between see how the rounds work, and for what to do after a no see reapplying to consulting.