2024–25 Rankings
Updated June 2026
Best Masters in Management Programs
Compare QS and Financial Times rankings for the world's top Master in Management programs — side-by-side, year-over-year.
QS
QS World University Rankings
FT
Financial Times Rankings
41
Programs
2
Ranking Sources
YoY
Trend Tracked
Quick Answer
Based on QS & FT 2025 data
HEC Paris claims the #1 spot in QS 2025 , while the University of St. Gallen leads the FT 2025 ranking for the 14th time — making these two the flagship MiM programs worldwide. France is the dominant country with six schools in the FT top 15 and four in the QS top 10, followed by the UK and Germany .
Top performers:
HEC Paris — QS #1
St. Gallen — FT #1
France
9 schools
UK
6 schools
Germany
4 schools
France
9 schools
UK
6 schools
Germany
4 schools
Filter by Country
Rank Tier:
1
Top 3
7
Top 10
15
Top 20
25
21+
—
Not Ranked
|
+3
Improved
-2
Dropped
NEW
New Entry
Top Masters in Management Programs
QS & Financial Times — 2024 vs 2025
QS
FT
Side-by-side comparison
|
HEC Paris
France
|
#1 | #2 | #1 | #2 | = | = |
|
University of St. Gallen
 Switzerland
|
— | #1 | — | #1 | — | = |
|
ESSEC Business School
France
|
#3 | #10 | #2 | #10 | -1 | = |
|
London Business School
UK
|
#4 | #10 | #3 | #6 | -1 | -4 |
|
INSEAD
France
|
#6 | #3 | #5 | #3 | -1 | = |
|
IE Business School
 Spain
|
#9 | #27 | #4 | #21 | -5 | -6 |
|
EDHEC Business School
France
|
#21 | #14 | #15 | #4 | -6 | -10 |
|
Tsinghua University School of Economics
 China
|
— | #4 | — | — | — | NEW |
|
Nova School of Business and Economics
 Portugal
|
#44 | #4 | #34 | #8 | -10 | +4 |
|
Shanghai Jiao Tong (Antai)
China
|
#91 | #6 | #62 | #5 | -29 | -1 |
|
ESCP Business School
France
|
#8 | #7 | #6 | #6 | -2 | -1 |
|
ESADE Business School
Spain
|
#16 | #24 | #8 | #18 | -8 | -6 |
|
EMlyon Business School
France
|
#17 | #12 | #13 | #8 | -4 | -4 |
|
Tongji University School of Economics
China
|
— | #8 | — | #13 | — | +5 |
|
Copenhagen Business School
 Denmark
|
#14 | — | #9 | — | -5 | — |
|
Stockholm School of Economics
 Sweden
|
— | #9 | — | #15 | — | +6 |
|
WU Vienna
 Austria
|
#18 | #18 | #10 | #20 | -8 | +2 |
|
CEMS
🌐Worldwide
|
#10 | — | #11 | — | +1 | — |
|
Bocconi University
 Italy
|
#13 | #13 | #12 | #11 | -1 | -2 |
|
IESE Business School
Spain
|
#11 | #16 | — | #17 | NEW | +1 |
|
Erasmus (RSM)
 Netherlands
|
#19 | — | #16 | #12 | -3 | NR |
|
Imperial College Business School
UK
|
#15 | #47 | #14 | #24 | -1 | -23 |
|
WHU Otto Beisheim
Germany
|
#24 | #22 | #22 | #14 | -2 | -8 |
|
Vlerick Business School
 Belgium
|
#35 | #14 | #29 | #22 | -6 | +8 |
|
Prague University of Economics
 Czech Republic
|
— | #17 | — | #16 | — | -1 |
|
London School of Economics
UK
|
— | — | #17 | — | NR | — |
|
Warwick Business School
UK
|
#22 | #40 | #18 | #33 | -4 | -7 |
|
SKEMA Business School
France
|
#30 | #18 | #23 | #30 | -7 | +12 |
|
Michigan Ross
 USA
|
#23 | — | #19 | — | -4 | — |
|
ESMT Berlin
Germany
|
#75 | #22 | #63 | #19 | -12 | -3 |
|
Duke Fuqua
USA
|
#26 | — | #20 | — | -6 | — |
|
Peking University HSBC
China
|
#28 | — | #21 | — | -7 | — |
|
Manchester Alliance
UK
|
#25 | #96 | #23 | #92 | -2 | -4 |
|
University of Sydney Business School
 Australia
|
#27 | #77 | #25 | #67 | -2 | -10 |
|
Audencia Business School
France
|
#40 | #25 | #40 | #43 | = | +18 |
|
University of Mannheim
Germany
|
#29 | #28 | #26 | #29 | -3 | +1 |
|
TUM School of Management
Germany
|
#31 | #54 | #27 | — | -4 | NEW |
|
Cranfield School of Management
UK
|
#34 | #69 | #28 | #58 | -6 | -11 |
|
UCD Dublin, Smurfit
 Ireland
|
#46 | #33 | #32 | #28 | -14 | -5 |
|
BI Norwegian Business School
 Norway
|
#38 | #88 | #30 | — | -8 | NEW |
|
Neoma Business School
France
|
#89 | #30 | #74 | #34 | -15 | +4 |
Note: Rankings shown are QS Masters in Management 2025 & 2024 and Financial Times Masters in Management 2025 & 2024. A "—" indicates the school was not ranked or data is unavailable for that year. The QS YoY and FT YoY columns compare each ranking’s 2025 position against its 2024 position. Click any school to see its underlying QS scores and FT outcomes.
Methodology Comparison
QS vs Financial Times MiM Rankings
The two rankings measure very different things — which is why the same school can sit 30+ positions apart. Here is what each one actually weighs.
QS
QS Business Master's Rankings: Management
Employer & outcomes data — 200+ programs assessed
Indicator weights (2025)
Employability
35%
Value for Money
20%
Thought Leadership
20%
Alumni Outcomes
15%
Class & Faculty Diversity
10%
Built largely on employer reputation surveys, alumni outcomes among global executives, and return-on-investment data. Schools do not need to submit alumni surveys to appear.
FT
FT Masters in Management Ranking
Alumni-survey driven — top 100 published
How it's built (2025)
Alumni survey (3 years after graduation)
56%
School-provided data
44%
— Weighted salary (US$, PPP)
15%
— Salary increase
9%
19 criteria in total, including value for money, career progress, international mobility and ESG teaching. Only schools that participate and meet alumni-response thresholds are ranked.
Why the same school ranks differently
Two things drive the gaps: methodology and participation . FT only ranks schools that opt in and meet alumni-survey response thresholds, and scores mostly on alumni outcomes like salary and mobility. QS requires no participation and leans on employer reputation and value for money. A school can therefore dominate one list and barely register — or not appear at all — in the other.
University of St. Gallen
FT
#1
·
QS
not ranked
Doesn't take part in the QS exercise — its absence reflects participation, not quality.
Imperial College
QS
#15
·
FT
#47
Elite QS Employability score (97.5/100), but FT weighs alumni salary — where Imperial ($84.7k) trails FT's top 15.
Prague University of Economics
FT
#17
·
QS
111–120
FT's PPP-adjusted salary increase (+55.9%) and value-for-money rank (#19) reward it; QS's employer-reputation-driven score doesn't.
Year-over-Year
2026 Edition
Biggest Ranking Changes in 2026
Which programs climbed the most, which dropped, and who entered the rankings for the first time — based on QS & FT year-over-year data.
Derived from YoY columns
QS Rankings
Biggest Risers
Audencia Business School
France
FT
+18 positions
SKEMA Business School
France
FT
+12 positions
Vlerick Business School
Belgium
FT
+8 positions
Stockholm School of Economics
Sweden
FT
+6 positions
Tongji University School of Economics
China
FT
+5 positions
Positions improved most between QS 2024 and QS 2025. A higher positive number indicates a larger jump up the rankings.
QS Rankings
Biggest Declines
Shanghai Jiao Tong (Antai)
China
QS
-29 positions
Imperial College Business School
UK
FT
-23 positions
Neoma Business School
France
QS
-15 positions
UCD Dublin, Smurfit
Ireland
QS
-14 positions
ESMT Berlin
Germany
QS
-12 positions
Positions dropped most between QS 2024 and QS 2025. A higher negative number indicates a steeper fall in the rankings.
QS & FT Rankings
New Entrants
BI Norwegian Business School
Norway
New in FT 2025
IESE Business School
Spain
New in QS 2025
Tsinghua University School of Economics
China
New in FT 2025
TUM School of Management
Germany
New in FT 2025
Schools appearing in QS or FT 2025 for the first time — absent from 2024 editions of the same ranking.
Why Ranking Stability Matters
Schools with consistent positions year over year signal strong, stable program quality — less dependent on survey anomalies. For applicants in the selection stage, a program that holds its rank across both QS and FT over multiple years is generally a lower-risk choice than one that fluctuates widely.
Riser
Decline
NEW
Methodology
How This Ranking Is Calculated
Our combined 1–41 sequence aggregates publicly available data from two authoritative sources. Here is exactly how it works.
QS
FT
Combined methodology
Step 1
Two Independent Sources
We pull raw rankings from two globally respected, independently published annual surveys:
QS
QS Masters in Management
FT
Financial Times MiM Ranking
No proprietary scoring or weighting is applied. All position values are taken directly from each publisher.
Step 2
Combined Score Calculation
Each school receives a combined position score using the best available rank across both sources:
Score
= min(QS 2025, FT 2025, QS 2024, FT 2024)
Schools are sorted ascending by this score — the lower the number, the higher the combined position.
Step 3
Handling Missing Positions
A "—" dash means the school was not included in that source's published list for that year.
- NEW Present in 2025 but absent in 2024 — flagged as a new entry.
- NR Present in 2024 but absent in 2025 — shown as not ranked in YoY column.
- Absent from both years — dash shown, school still included if ranked elsewhere.
Step 4
When Positions Update
This page is refreshed each time QS or FT publishes a new edition of their MIM rankings:
QS
QS Edition
Published annually — typically September
FT
FT Edition
Published annually — each September
Last updated: June 2026
Ordering Logic — Step by Step
-
1Collect all ranked positionsFor each school, gather QS 2025, QS 2024, FT 2025, FT 2024 positions. Unranked slots are treated as position 9999 for sorting purposes only.
-
2Derive combined scoreTake the minimum (best) position across all four data points. This rewards schools that excel in at least one authoritative ranking.
-
3Sort ascending by scoreSchools are listed from lowest combined score (best) to highest. The "#" column reflects this sequence, not any individual ranking's order.
-
4Display raw positions alongsideQS and FT positions are always shown as-published, so readers can verify every number directly against the primary source at any time.
Editorial Independence & Transparency
No proprietary algorithm. Positions are derived solely from published QS and FT data — we add no weighting, no editorial score, and no sponsor influence.
Schools cannot pay for placement. The combined order is a mechanical calculation — any school can improve its position only by improving its standing in the QS or FT surveys.
Multiple sources reduce bias. Relying on two independent surveys — which use different criteria — gives a more balanced picture than either list alone.
Historical data preserved. Prior-year columns (2024) remain visible so year-over-year trends are fully auditable and not quietly revised.
Limitation: scope differs. QS and FT do not rank identical school populations. A school ranked highly by one and absent from the other may appear higher in the combined list than expected — always check both columns.
QS
Primary Source
QS Masters in Management Ranking
Published by Quacquarelli Symonds — scores employability, alumni outcomes, value for money, thought leadership, and class & faculty diversity
FT
Primary Source
FT Masters in Management Ranking
Published by the Financial Times — built on alumni surveys three years after graduation: weighted salary, career progress, international mobility and ESG teaching
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about our MIM rankings methodology, data sources, and how to interpret the results.
Both QS and the Financial Times publish a new Masters in Management edition once a year, typically in September. This page is refreshed whenever either publisher releases a new edition, and prior-year columns stay visible so you can track movement.
Because the two publishers measure different things. QS leans on employability (35%), value for money and thought leadership, drawing on employer surveys and alumni outcomes. FT is built mainly on alumni surveys three years after graduation — salary, career progress and international mobility. Imperial College, for example, is #15 in QS 2025 but #47 in FT 2025.
When two or more schools receive the same overall score, the publisher assigns them the same (joint) position and skips the next one. In FT 2025, ESSEC and London Business School are both ranked #10, so no school holds #11.
Yes. Rankings average a fixed set of criteria, so a program can rank modestly overall yet be the strongest option for your budget, target country, specialization or recruiting pipeline. Check the underlying indicators — salary, employment rate, value for money — rather than the headline position alone.
Very. MiM cohorts are among the most international in business education, and both rankings measure this directly: FT tracks international students, faculty and post-graduation work mobility, while QS scores class and faculty diversity. If studying abroad is the goal, these indicators matter as much as the overall rank.
Total cost against expected salary, curriculum and available specializations, location and post-study work rights, class profile and cohort size, alumni network strength in your target industry, and the school’s own employment report.
Go one level deeper. Compare each school’s position in both QS and FT rather than a single list, look at the underlying metrics — weighted salary, percentage employed at three months, value for money — and check how stable the school’s position has been year over year.
Use rankings to build a shortlist of six to ten schools, then filter by hard constraints: budget, geography, language and intake dates. Verify outcomes in each school’s employment report, and decide between finalists by talking to current students and alumni or attending admissions events.
Compare
Side-by-Side Comparison
Best value per row is highlighted. QS indicator scores are 0–100; FT salary in PPP-adjusted US$.