2026 QuantNet Rankings of Best Quant Programs in the US

​

In the 2026 ranking, we introduced several updates to our methodology to more accurately reflect the strengths of each program:

• Increased emphasis on placement success:
  The weight for this category has been raised from 55% to 60%, with the 3-month placement rate now weighted at 20% (up from 15%).
• Adjusted weight of student selectivity:
  The student selectivity category has been reduced from 25% to 20%. Within this category, the new weight distribution is:
  • Undergraduate GPA: 5% (down from 17.5%)
  • Acceptance rate: 10% (up from 7.5%)
  • Yield rate: 5%

 

[Woodchipper]

I have a strong curiosity of the self-selection aspect of these schools and the admissions. Will the visa scares play a role in applicant selection? Will these programs undergo a law school-level application rise to quite literally attempt to buy more time? I have a prediction that the larger names only become more solidified whereas the lesser ones slip slightly in the eyes of international applicants simply because of higher placement rates as well as the name brand effect covered earlier in this thread. I am but just a lowly user of this site with a ponderance, curious to hear your takes.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Members with keen eyes will notice that on over the past several months, we have added a few data points on the ranking page that would give them insights into the strength of a program and how robust its career services is. We will continue to expand the level of detailed insights to make sure QuantNet members are more informed and prepared for the industry.

Graduate Reporting Rate*: Percentage of graduates whose post-graduation status (seeking FT employment or not seeking, e.g., PhD) is known. 100% = no unknown cases.
Salary Report Rate**: Percentage of graduates employed in the US who reported salary information.

 

[rajivp]

Since a large percentage of STEM students are international, I’m curious how programs differ in financial support and flexibility regarding visa delays or deferrals. In my experience, many applicants factor these policies heavily when choosing between programs. Insight into which programs are more supportive in these areas could be a valid data point!!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Since a large percentage of STEM students are international, I’m curious how programs differ in financial support and flexibility regarding visa delays or deferrals. In my experience, many applicants factor these policies heavily when choosing between programs. Insight into which programs are more supportive in these areas could be a valid data point!!

Just have some data points but programs are flexible giving deferral options for those who got issue with visa appointment, etc. You can defer to the next year.
Financial support is something we have to see. I know Rutgers increased their max scholarship amount. Other programs may offering more attractive package to retain the top applicants.

 

[deeto]

My prediction. GA Tech #1 (Because I am going there and would love that to be true)

 

[Andy Nguyen]

My prediction. GA Tech #1 (Because I am going there and would love that to be true)

I can not confirm nor deny that GaTech QCF will be #1. I can only say that there will be movement(s) this year.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

T - minus 5

T - 2

In the 2026 ranking, we will formally introduce 2 new variables which we've tracked the past few years but not publicly accessible.
Graduate Reporting Rate*: Percentage of graduates whose post-graduation status (seeking FT employment or not seeking, e.g., PhD) is known. 100% = no unknown cases.
Salary Report Rate**: Percentage of graduates employed in the US who reported salary information.

How would these help prospective applicants?
They are both indicative of how robust a program's career services is.
A graduate reporting rate of 100% means a program can account for every single of its graduates. They know who are looking for job, who is going on to do PhD, etc. A 80% rate would indicate that there are 20% of the group with unknown status (do not response to the program's survey, outreach, etc).
The bigger the program, the more important this number is.
A salary report rate of 100% means all graduates having jobs in the US reported their salary figure. This ensure the compensation number is much more accurate and shows how effective the career service is. Graduates with satisfactory job outcome tend to report their salary at a higher rate. Again, the bigger the program, the more important this number.

 

[rajivp]

has QuantNet ever run a “before vs. after” poll (i see one poll ongoing of where you wnat to apply) as in, which programs applicants planned to choose before the rankings came out, and which ones they ended up choosing after?
I feel like that would legitimately highlight how influential QuantNet rankings are - “20% of candidates changed their acceptance decisions after seeing the rankings.”
That’s something Andy could definitely brag about… unless that kind of transparency is considered too powerful.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Given the timing of the ranking release and the admission cycle, I suspect that most applicants already have a list of programs they apply to. The rankings definitely help them narrow down the list but the ultimate decision is pretty personal such as financial aid, location, etc.
Here is an interesting poll I ran on LinkedIn. As QuantNet is the only place that you can find the ranking and exclusive student reviews, that's flexing enough for me already.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

The list of all programs on our 2026 rankings sorted by acceptance rate.

 

[MikeLawrence]

We do teasers now?

 

[Paul Lopez]

Great list! Congrats to Baruch!

 

[Andy Nguyen]

We do teasers now?

Yes, and since you asked for it, here is a list of programs with placement rate at graduation, 3 months and 3 months (US only).
Why this matters?
The 3-month placement mark is considered a good measure of placement success. A great program will place most of its graduates by graduation so the 3-month mark should get as close to 100% as possible.
Some people would suggest using a 6-month mark but using that metric would reduce the usefulness of the number since the longer the time line, the higher the %. This is why QuantNet ranking using the 3-month mark instead of 6-month mark as in other placement reports.

The below table may not tell the full story because getting a 100% placement rate when you have 80 graduates are far more different when you only have 8 students. You would also need to take into account the number of graduates that respond to the survey and provide the salary, the higher they are, the more accurate your numbers will be.

How do you get the full picture? You wait until the full ranking is released at 9AM tomorrow.

 

[fabiantum]

Yes, and since you asked for it, here is a list of programs with placement rate at graduation, 3 months and 3 months (US only).
Why this matters?
The 3-month placement mark is considered a good measure of placement success. A great program will place most of its graduates by graduation so the 3-month mark should get as close to 100% as possible.
Some people would suggest using a 6-month mark but using that metric would reduce the usefulness of the number since the longer the time line, the higher the %.

The below table may not tell the full story because getting a 100% placement rate when you have 80 graduates are far more different when you only have 8 students. You would also need to take into account the number of graduates that respond to the survey and provide the salary, the higher they are, the more accurate your numbers will be.

How do you get the full picture? You wait until the full ranking is released at 9AM tomorrow.

View attachment 58484

@Andy Nguyen I was wondering if the US only employment data matters. Of course, if it is exceptionally low, such as for the University of Illinois, that's a bad sign. But for everything above 80 percent there might be legitimate reasons, e.g. for Baruch.
So what are your thoughts on this data point?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

@Andy Nguyen I was wondering if the US only employment data matters. Of course, if it is exceptionally low, such as for the University of Illinois, that's a bad sign. But for everything above 80 percent there might be legitimate reasons, e.g. for Baruch.
So what are your thoughts on this data point?

Good question. We include this data during Covid when many students couldn't find job and have to go back home. It is very hard to discern which good programs from bad ones without this data. Without this US only data, two programs with the same 80% placement rate may tell two different stories.
One may have all students working in the US while the other only half in the US and the other half back home. Guess which one is better?
Take the Illinois example. For the sake of simple calculation, assume they have 50 graduates. The table above will tell you have 29 graduates found job at graduation and 42 in total got job 3-month later. Of those 42 students, only 22 are in the US and 20 found jobs elsewhere, most likely their home country.
When people go to the US to do MFE, the main goal is to get a job in the US and get paid the US salary. Having to go back home and get a fraction of the salary while paying around 100K for tuition is not the outcome people want.

These data is to provide greater transparency so that applicants can have as much insight as possible into these programs. It's a niche degree in a niche field so the more data you have, the better.

 

[fabiantum]

Good question. We include this data during Covid when many students couldn't find job and have to go back home. It is very hard to discern which good programs from bad ones without this data. Without this US only data, two programs with the same 80% placement rate may tell two different stories.
Take the Illinois example. For the sake of simple calculation, assume they have 50 graduates. The table above will tell you have 29 graduates found job at graduation and 42 in total got job 3-month later. Of those 42 students, only 22 are in the US and 20 found jobs elsewhere, most likely their home country.
When people go to the US to do MFE, the main goal is to get a job in the US and get paid the US salary. Having to go back home and get a fraction of the salary while paying around 100K for tuition is not the outcome people want.

These data is to provide greater transparency so that applicants can have as much insight as possible into these programs. It's a niche degree in a niche field so the more data you have, the better.

I love that there are new data points every year. Makes it easier for a lot of applicants.
Thank you, Andy

 

[kakimochi]

Yes, and since you asked for it, here is a list of programs with placement rate at graduation, 3 months and 3 months (US only).
Why this matters?
The 3-month placement mark is considered a good measure of placement success. A great program will place most of its graduates by graduation so the 3-month mark should get as close to 100% as possible.
Some people would suggest using a 6-month mark but using that metric would reduce the usefulness of the number since the longer the time line, the higher the %. This is why QuantNet ranking using the 3-month mark instead of 6-month mark as in other placement reports.

The below table may not tell the full story because getting a 100% placement rate when you have 80 graduates are far more different when you only have 8 students. You would also need to take into account the number of graduates that respond to the survey and provide the salary, the higher they are, the more accurate your numbers will be.

How do you get the full picture? You wait until the full ranking is released at 9AM tomorrow.

View attachment 58484

This is very insightful. I know a bit earlier you posted a survey on LinkedIn asking what factors do people think about when it comes to attending a particular school. This has got to be a big driver for many.

I’m eyeing out the uChicago and Columbia stats.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

I’m eyeing out the uChicago and Columbia stats.

Which Columbia?

 

[kakimochi]

Which Columbia?

It seems that Columbia MFE consistently has better employment stats and the curriculum having emphasis on AI usage in finance appeals to me very much. There are other factors of course as MFE seems to be slightly cheaper compared to the MAFN.

I also realize how much location affects our job opportunities. uChicago —> work in Chicago. Columbia —> work in New York. I’ve heard some people mention that the competition and saturation in New York might be a worry for some so people would choose Chicago where America’s second biggest financial district resides. However, I do have to say competition isn’t a big problem for me as I come from an athletic background and competition has shaped my growth.

uChicago also seems like it has really good employment stats and they said on their website they provide merit scholarships for applicants.

These are all factors that might sway people’s decisions for sure, as it makes me think a bit more as well.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

If you are competitive in nature, you will have your proving ground in NYC. There is a saying "if you can survive in NYC, you can survive anywhere". It's a jungle, cut throat environment in a lot of ways.
I spent all my formal study and working in NYC and that's where I thrive the most. For young people working in finance, no better place to be. Of course, there are good reasons to live and work in Chicago, Boston or elsewhere. Everyone has his own criteria.
Chicago is very generous with their scholarship and it has attracted a lot of students. None of Columbia programs provide scholarship currently as far as I know.