Analysis Group Summer Intern Interview: Complete Guide

Updated Jun 2026

Analysis Group interviews test whether you can reason like a testifying economist: identify the counterfactual, choose an identification strategy (difference-in-differences, synthetic control, event study), and explain a damages calculation a federal judge would actually find admissible under the Daubert standard.

Rounds

Each lasts

45-60 minutes

Format

Interviewer-led

Watch for

Economics Focus

Updated April 202610 min readOfficial Analysis Group careers \u2197

Analysis Group 2026 recruiting calendar

Closing soon

Under two weeks to apps close. Prioritise live case reps over reading — the gap this late is repetition, not knowledge.

Applications openLate August (campus); rolling for experienced

Applications closeMid-October (full-time Associate); mid-January (summer Analyst)

Interviews startNovember (full-time); February (summer)

Decisions byLate November (full-time); early March (summer)

Key Insight: Interviewer-Led Format

Analysis Group uses an interviewer-led format, which means the interviewer controls the pace and direction of the case. Unlike candidate-led firms, you'll receive specific questions rather than driving the analysis yourself. For Summer Intern candidates, this means focusing on answering precisely what is asked without over-elaborating.

What Summer Interns Do at Analysis Group

Summer internship program for undergraduate or MBA students. Interns work on real client projects for 8-10 weeks with the goal of receiving a full-time return offer.

•Supporting case team analysis
•Attending client meetings
•Building slides and models
•Learning consulting methodology
•Networking with firm members

Interview Process

1First round (often a technical phone screen followed by in-person)
Conducted by: Manager / Vice President
Two 45-60 minute interviews mixing case-style economic reasoning with technical probes on econometrics, statistics, and microeconomic theory. Expect a hands-on data or modelling component — candidates with Stata / R / Python experience are openly preferred for the Associate track.
2Final round
Conducted by: Principal / Managing Principal
Two to three interviews. Senior staff probe on the research judgment required for expert-witness support: which methodology to choose, what robustness checks a federal judge expects, and how to communicate econometric results to non-technical audiences. PhD candidates get a deeper research-discussion round.

Skills Analysis Group tests in this round

Tap a skill to jump straight to the drill or guide that builds it.

Potential

Analytical basicsCase fundamentals →

Learning agility

Cultural fitSharpen fit stories →

What Makes Analysis Group Different

Economics Focus

A key element of the Analysis Group interview process.

Litigation Support

A key element of the Analysis Group interview process.

Quantitative Rigor

A key element of the Analysis Group interview process.

Sample Analysis Group Cases

Case 1: A regional hospital alleges a rival health system's exclusive payor contracts fo…

Prompt: A regional hospital alleges a rival health system's exclusive payor contracts foreclosed competition between 2018 and 2022. You're advising the plaintiff's economics expert. How would you design the damages analysis, and what identification concerns do you anticipate?

How to structure: Analysis Group cases want a rigorous econometric frame, not a strategy structure. Start by stating the counterfactual explicitly: what would the plaintiff's revenue have been absent the challenged conduct? Propose an identification strategy — difference-in-differences using comparable non-affected markets, or synthetic control if comparables are weak — and name the threats to identification (parallel-trends, spillovers, endogenous market definition). Close with the damages calculation structure: lost-profits vs. lost-business-value, discount rate, pre/post-judgment interest.

What a strong answer sounds like: A strong candidate names the identification strategy before the damages model, anticipates at least two Daubert-style methodological attacks (e.g., 'defense will argue the control markets aren't parallel because of demographic drift'), and proposes a robustness check per concern. They close by framing damages as the testifiable question ('what number would I defend on cross-examination?'), not a back-of-envelope delta.

Common weakness: Candidates who treat this like a business strategy case — 'I'd look at market share and pricing' — miss the point. Analysis Group isn't asking what happened; they're asking how you'd prove what would have happened in a rigorous, courtroom-admissible way.

What interviewers actually evaluate:

States the counterfactual before any analysis
Names a specific identification strategy (difference-in-differences, synthetic control, event study) and justifies the choice
Anticipates Daubert standard challenges to the methodology
Distinguishes lost profits from lost business value
Knows what discount rate and interest conventions federal courts expect

Case 2: A proposed antitrust class of direct purchasers alleges a cartel inflated drug p…

Prompt: A proposed antitrust class of direct purchasers alleges a cartel inflated drug prices by 10-15% between 2015 and 2020. You're working on class certification. What would you need to show the court, and how would you structure the economic analysis?

How to structure: Class certification cases turn on whether impact (overcharge pass-through) can be shown using common, class-wide evidence — the Comcast v. Behrend standard. Structure: (1) theoretical model of overcharge pass-through, (2) empirical test using transaction-level data showing the overcharge reached all or substantially all class members, (3) damages model that maps the overcharge to individual purchases in a mechanical way. Expect a probe on how you'd handle intra-class variation without blowing up commonality.

What interviewers actually evaluate:

Frames class certification as an econometric question, not a legal one
Knows the economic meaning of commonality / predominance
Distinguishes theoretical pass-through from empirical pass-through
Handles intra-class variation as a technical (not rhetorical) question

Common Mistakes in Analysis Group Interviews

!Treating this like a strategy consulting interview. Analysis Group is an economics consulting firm — the analytical vocabulary is difference-in-differences, synthetic control, Daubert standard, and damages calculation, not 3Cs / Porter's Five Forces. Use the right language or the interviewer concludes you haven't read the firm's work.
!Weak econometrics fundamentals. Candidates who can't explain what makes a causal estimate credible (identification, parallel trends, threats to inference) fail the first-round technical probes. Review your graduate-level econometrics notes before interviewing.
!Ignoring the courtroom context. Analysis Group's work supports econometric expert witnesses — every analysis must survive cross-examination. Candidates who don't think about Daubert-style methodological attacks miss why the firm cares about robustness checks.
!Under-preparing the HEOR / antitrust economics / IP valuation specialisations. Analysis Group organises by practice area (health economics, antitrust, IP, labour, energy) — candidates who can't name which practice matches their background look uncurious.
!Presenting results without uncertainty. Point estimates without confidence intervals or sensitivity ranges signal a research immaturity the firm filters out fast.

What recent Analysis Group candidates say

“Hi have you guys heard a consulting firm Analysis Group? It's an economic consulting company, what the exit opportunities look like at those type of firm? If my target is PE firms or tech firm corp strategies, do I have a shot if I work there for 2 years?”
— PrepLounge · Candidate-authored OP on PrepLounge, 2020-02-23 — MBA student researching Analysis Group (economic consulting) exits into PE / tech corp strategy · verified 2026-04-17

How Analysis Group Differs

vs.	How Analysis Group differs
Mckinsey	Analysis Group is an economics consulting firm built around expert-witness testimony and econometric analysis; McKinsey is a strategy consulting firm. Analysis Group cases test causal inference, damages calculation, and class certification economics — not MECE business frameworks. If the word 'Daubert standard' doesn't mean anything to you, McKinsey is the better fit.
Oliver-wyman	Oliver Wyman's actuarial and financial-services work overlaps with Analysis Group's finance practice on paper, but the audience differs: OW serves corporate clients making commercial decisions, Analysis Group serves law firms and agencies preparing for litigation or regulatory review. Completely different deliverables.
Ey-parthenon	EY-Parthenon does commercial due diligence for PE; Analysis Group does antitrust economics, IP valuation, and HEOR for law firms. Same 'economic consulting' umbrella, very different day-to-day work.

Practice a real Analysis Group case — free

A voice interviewer runs the case live, then grades your structure, math, and synthesis.

A live case run by a voice interviewer — speak, don't type
A scored five-skill report: structure, math, judgment, synthesis, communication
Your weakest skill diagnosed, with a plan sized in sessions, not vague advice

Start a free case

Free to start · No card required

What candidates reported in the last 30 days

Submitted by real candidates after their Analysis Group interview. All entries are anonymized and human-reviewed before publication.

No reports yet for Analysis Group Internship. Be the first to share.

Did you interview? Submit your case

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a PhD to get hired at Analysis Group?

No for the Analyst and Associate tracks; frequently yes for the Manager-plus and testifying-adjacent tracks. Analysis Group hires undergraduates with strong economics, math, or stats backgrounds into the Analyst role (entry after Bachelor's) and MA / MBA / JD / PhD candidates into the Associate role. PhDs (typically in economics, but also health policy, finance, or industrial organisation) are on a faster path to research-intensive work that directly supports testifying experts — and are the default long-term path to Principal. You can absolutely build a career at Analysis Group without a PhD, but the economist-expert-witness seat is almost exclusively PhD-held.

Do I need Stata, R, or Python for the Analysis Group interview?

For the Associate track, yes — real comfort with at least one. Analysis Group's work is hands-on econometric analysis on litigation or regulatory datasets (claims data, transaction data, price panels). Interviewers openly prefer candidates who've run difference-in-differences regressions, done synthetic-control work, or handled panel data in Stata, R, or Python. The technical phone screen often includes a live question on a specification choice or a data-cleaning decision. Candidates who can only describe econometrics verbally underperform candidates who've actually written the code. Analyst-track candidates have more flexibility here but still benefit from demonstrable Stata or R familiarity.

Should I target antitrust, HEOR, or IP at Analysis Group — how do I know which fits?

Practice-area fit is material and interviewers probe on it. Antitrust economics suits candidates with strong industrial organisation or microeconomic theory backgrounds — market definition, price-fixing damages, merger simulation, class certification under Comcast. HEOR (health economics outcomes research) suits health-policy, public-health, and biostatistics backgrounds — cost-effectiveness modeling, payer evidence, real-world evidence studies. IP valuation suits finance and econometrics candidates comfortable with royalty modeling, patent damages, and Georgia-Pacific factor analysis. Be specific about which practice matches your research or coursework; candidates who claim generic interest in all three signal they haven't done the research on how the firm actually organizes.

Will Analysis Group ask me about the Daubert standard in the interview?

Yes, likely explicitly at Associate+ level. The Daubert standard is the federal admissibility test for expert testimony: the methodology must be testable, peer-reviewed or generally accepted, have a known error rate, and be applied reliably to the facts. Analysis Group's entire business depends on producing expert work that survives Daubert challenges. Expect a case probe like 'what Daubert-style attacks would the opposing side's expert raise against your difference-in-differences specification, and how would you defend?' If Daubert is a new concept, read the original Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals opinion summary and one published Analysis Group expert report before you interview.

Does Analysis Group require a writing sample or research presentation?

Often yes at PhD and experienced-hire levels. The Principal and Managing Principal rounds frequently include a research discussion where you walk through a dissertation chapter, a job-market paper, or a technical memo you've authored. Expect probes on identification strategy, counterfactual construction, and robustness checks — the same vocabulary used on client cases. For non-PhD Associate candidates, a writing sample (econometric policy memo, thesis excerpt) may be requested, though the format is less formalised. Prepare a 10-minute walkthrough of one piece of rigorous empirical work you own end-to-end. Hand-wavy research discussions fail fast at Principal level.

What's the difference between Analysis Group, Cornerstone Research, and NERA?

All three are economics consulting firms supporting econometric expert witness work, and the overlap in case types (antitrust, securities, IP, damages calculation) is real. Analysis Group has the strongest HEOR and health economics practice, a large intellectual property valuation franchise, and publishes published expert reports prolifically. Cornerstone Research skews heavier toward securities litigation and financial economics. NERA is owned by Oliver Wyman Group and leans toward regulatory economics, energy, and international arbitration. At the Associate level the work is comparable; practice depth is where they diverge. Candidates who articulate practice-level differences in fit conversations outperform those who treat the three as interchangeable.

Continue your Analysis Group prep

Compensation

Analysis Group Summer Intern salary & total comp

Firm guide

Analysis Group interview playbook