I scored a 675 (Q90, V81, DI80) on the GMAT Focus Edition — a perfect quant score — after a journey that tested me more than most: five attempts across a year and a half, starting from a 575 diagnostic, with three consecutive scores of 655. I say this up front because my review isn't from someone the platform carried on the first try; it's from someone who plateaued hard and can tell you exactly which parts of e-GMAT broke the ceiling. Before committing, I tried and tested almost all other alternatives available and e-GMAT was the most holistic of them and by far the closest to the actual exam. That last part matters more than people realize. I took fifteen mocks on another platform the previous year and their verbal was nowhere near real-exam difficulty, which quietly miscalibrates you; e-GMAT's five mocks were the closest thing to the real test I found anywhere, and I treated them like dress rehearsals — same 10 AM slot, same café, same coffee, a full day of analysis after each one.
The structure is what turned "study harder" into "fix the specific leak." The path is simple: finish the module, then let the module questions expose your weaknesses, then diagnose rather than grind. The error log became the backbone of my prep — every mistake classified as execution error, process error, conceptual gap, or timing — and that classification is what told me, after my third 655, that my problem was no longer content at all. The quant question bank runs deliberately harder than the actual exam, and that's a feature: my weighted accuracy on it was around 85%, and on test day the real questions felt easy. That's how an engineer who "was always fine at math" converts fine into a Q90 — three times across my five attempts, in fact. Verbal was my weak section, and the platform's strategies (pre-thinking in CR before touching a single option) gave me a fixed, repeatable process for every question type; my weighted accuracy there reached 78%, and in DI around 73-74%. Walking into the exam, I wasn't hoping — I knew the data, and the data said I could perform.
The sectional mocks deserve their own mention. In the final stretch I stacked them back-to-back — verbal, then quant, then a 10-minute break, then DI — to simulate the real exam's flow and build stamina without burning a full mock. There are plenty of them on the platform, and they're the most underrated tool it has.
But the piece that actually got me from 655 to 675 was the Last Mile Push and my mentor, Shubham. After three identical scores there was nothing left to teach me about triangles or assumptions — what I needed was someone reading my data and my behavior from the outside. He's the one who told me to stop obsessing over verbal and let my strengths carry the score, to cut my study time from five-six sleep-deprived hours a day down to a hard maximum of three, and to stop putting my entire life's stakes on one sitting. Whenever I felt down in those last twenty days, I'd get on a call and come out lighter. That mentorship is the part of this course self-study can never replicate. If your concepts are done and the score still won't move — if you're the person rereading your third identical score report — this platform, and especially that program, is built for exactly you.

Read More

I had initially decided to self-study for the GMAT, putting in about 2–3 hours every day alongside a full-time job. After two months of rigorous preparation, I took my first attempt and scored a 625. What made the result particularly difficult to process was that my mocks before the exam were consistently 700+, so I knew that my technical preparation wasn’t the problem.
I’ve always been an overthinker, and the adaptive nature of the GMAT created a lot of anxiety for me. Even though I walked into the test centre feeling calm, the moment the test started, I found myself putting an enormous amount of pressure on getting the first few questions right. I spent almost five minutes on my very first question—a question I was technically capable of solving, but one I simply couldn’t get myself to answer. From there, the pressure kept building.
After the exam, I reviewed my score report and realized that while my conceptual understanding was satisfactory, I needed help with something much more difficult to identify on my own: my test-taking strategy and execution.
I had come across Piyush’s videos and student interviews during my preparation, and what stood out to me was that his approach seemed to go beyond simply teaching GMAT concepts. He seemed to understand the test and, more importantly, the mindset required to take it effectively. That’s what made me decide to work with him.
I was honestly surprised by how quickly Piyush was able to dissect my approach to the exam. He often pointed out mental setbacks and habits that I wasn’t even aware I had. Through mocks and detailed feedback, he helped me understand exactly where my execution was breaking down and gave me a structured way to improve.
One of my biggest challenges was the pressure I put on myself to solve every Quant question in under two minutes, especially in the first half of the section. Piyush analyzed my timing data in detail and helped me realize something I had completely overlooked: I was actually very capable of managing the second half of the Quant section within the available time. That meant I could afford to spend 3–3.5 minutes on some of the earlier questions without putting my entire section at risk.
That realization took away a huge amount of pressure from the first five questions.
Piyush also helped me understand the adaptive nature of the test in a much more practical way. He helped me see that while the GMAT is not fully linear, it is also not something where every single question needs to be treated as a make-or-break moment. I learned to trust my instincts, manage my time based on my own strengths, and—perhaps most importantly—stop second-guessing myself.
His confidence in me played a huge role in that. He was always available, completely honest about my mistakes, and never hesitated to call out the areas where I needed to improve. At the same time, he gave me the confidence to believe that I could execute the test the way I had in my mocks.
I retook the GMAT just 19 days after my first attempt and scored a 695.
Of course, the 70-point improvement was a huge relief. But what surprised me most was looking back at my section performance and seeing that I had gotten the first 10 questions of every section correct—the exact part of the exam I had been most afraid of, had struggled with the most in my first attempt, and had spent so much time worrying about.
For me, that was the clearest indication of how much my approach to the test had changed in those 19 days.
I genuinely attribute that change to the support I received from GMATWhiz and Piyush. The concepts were never really my biggest issue; learning how to approach the exam, manage my thoughts and time, and trust my own preparation was. Piyush helped me work through all of that. He became much more than a tutor during those few weeks—he was a mentor, a sounding board, and a major support system throughout the process.
If you’re someone who knows the concepts but feels that your test-taking strategy, mindset, or execution is holding you back, I would strongly recommend working with Piyush. For me, the difference wasn’t simply in learning more GMAT content. It was in learning how to actually perform on the test.

Read More

Piyush was the single biggest reason why my performance in GMAT turned drastically and I scored a 695 (FE). I had given 3 attempts of GMAT focus edition and scored a 645 each time. However, I happened to contact Piyush just a month before my fourth scheduled attempt and that was a turning point.

He promptly identified my technical mistakes that held me back and gave precise exercises to improve upon them. Despite a hectic work schedule, following his directions instead of mindlessly practicing a large volume of questions helped me stay fresh for the test and score well. Working with him has literally opened up a world of opportunities for me and I can’t thank him enough for it.

Read More

Six points of Data Insights. That is my whole improvement.

My first official attempt was a 615 carrying a DI77, and I finished at 675: V83, Q84, DI83, the 95th percentile. Verbal and quant each moved by a single point.

Two years of on and off prep, a course already finished once, and no way to test if any of it worked. I practised off PDFs and ran my own timer. I kept an error log with no idea whether it was any good, and there was nobody to help me figure out where exactly I was messing up. I had even bought this course back in 2021 and abandoned it after one mock, out of pure nerves.

e-GMAT starts at the diagnosis. The Personalised Study Plan takes your target, your test date and the hours you can honestly commit, then tells you what is fixable in the time left. PACE does the same at topic level, a diagnostic you take before studying, sorting lessons into leave alone and learn properly. I ran it after verbal and it confirmed I could skip what I was already good at. That saved me weeks.

Then nothing ran on instinct. The end-of-topic cementing quizzes carry a pass mark you clear or retake, and they are brutal. My hard Word Problems set opened at 30 percent, then 20, then 20 again, then 20. I am an engineer. That stung.

The error-log template turned it around. It does not ask which answer I got wrong, it asks at which step in my own process I came off the rails. Quant stopped being a knowledge problem and became a behavioural one. The same set read 50 percent the next day. Timed sectionals in Scholaranium took my quant from a 78 in early June into the high eighties, touching 90 twice, and Neuron OG did the same for CR with full reasoning behind every official question. My hard sets went from the low fifties to 70 inside a week.

DI is where e-GMAT is doing something I have not seen elsewhere. The course is built type by type and broad enough that you learn the thinking, never a template. Hard Data Sufficiency went 30 to 80, Graphical Interpretation went 40 to 80, and MSR went 60 to 83 on medium and 50 to 77 on hard. TPA on hard went 70 to 80, my strongest sub-section by then.

The change I would point at is not a number. On an MSR I used to open the question and start hunting, and now I read every tab first, the units, the time periods, where each figure sits. Three minutes in there feels insane. You get all of it back.

Last Mile Push was not really teaching. It was a mentor reading my dashboards weekly, naming habits I could not see, and telling me the numbers were sound when I did not feel it.

One warning. The mocks here are built to punish. Some will hurt.

If you know the content and you are plateauing anyway, this is the one to buy, especially if DI is the section you have been hoping will sort itself out.

Read More

The honest part is that none of it happened quickly. The toughest stretch was about a month of grinding through Verbal, question after question, with no movement in the results at all, and that kind of plateau is genuinely frustrating. What broke it was the LMP support and the mentor conversations. Before those I was not consistent; after them I started showing up daily. That mattered more for me than it might for most people, because I am based in a remote part of Odisha with no peer group to discuss prep with, so having someone there to encourage me whenever things were not moving was huge. It was one of the biggest reasons I kept going. So my recommendation is specific rather than general. If you are self-studying without a framework, or you are somewhere remote with nobody around you preparing for the same exam, e-GMAT and the LMP program can be a game changer, because of how extensive and well built the course is.

Read More

The clearest change in me was on inference questions, where I used to choose the option that merely sounded consistent with the passage. What replaced that was naming the line in the text that actually backs the answer, and if I could not name it, it was not the answer. Three days before my exam that habit caught a trap live and my Verbal sectional came back at 87. The mentorship through the Last Mile Push mattered as much as the material. Shubham was timely and actionable throughout, and it settles something to know there is expert judgement behind you whatever a quiz says. The honest caveat: the step from medium to hard cementing is a real cliff, and those quizzes are built to expose you rather than reassure you. I will also say plainly that my official Verbal came in under the band my practice was reading, and the pacing lesson took me longer to learn than the content did. If you have genuine fundamentals but have plateaued and cannot see which block is costing you the points, this is the course that will show you.

Read More

675 overall, the 94th percentile - and the number I care about is the Q87 at the 93rd, in the section I
thought was my ceiling. Quant was why I signed up. It became the strongest thing on my scorecard.
If you were the candidate I was, you will recognise the problem before the fix: a respectable score
everywhere and no idea where the points are going. You are not failing, you are quietly practising the
wrong things at the wrong difficulty and calling it work. e-GMAT removes that guesswork first. Its
personalised study plan turns your target, deadline and realistic weekly hours into a sequenced order of
what to attack, so you triage what is fixable in the time you have. PACE works the other end, running a
short diagnostic quiz before each topic and telling you which lessons to skip, so no hours go into
relearning what you know already.
Where e-GMAT separates itself is Quant, specifically the depth of the diagnosis. Scholaranium, its
question library, does not stop at "your algebra is weak" - it groups each subsection into topic families
and reports hard-question accuracy for each family separately, so the weak spot has an address. Mine
was not conceptual. I was skipping constraints and solving one case where two existed. Once the data
named the bleeding families, I built custom quizzes on exactly those tags and ran them against a short
list of non-negotiables:
• nothing gets skimmed
• every sentence becomes an equation
• the actual question gets copied out before I solve
Algebra hard accuracy climbed from the 70 percent mark to 90, Word Problems ending in the same
band. Cementing quizzes gave me a defensible line for calling a topic closed, and the sectional mocks did
what fundamentals cannot on their own - they built timed execution, and my verbal timed sections
finished at 87 after starting well below it. Neuron, whose exam-standard questions come with the full
worked solution, cleared the Data Insights graph types volume alone was not touching.
The clearest before-and-after is behavioural. An algebra question with a hidden second case used to be
a confident wrong answer: solve, tick, move on. Now the constraints go on paper and I check for a
second case before committing. That one change is most of my Quant jump, and having a Last Mile Push
mentor work through the same numbers with me is what made it visible - I would draw one conclusion
from a mock and get back a better-informed reading of it. One honest caveat: the mocks lower your
score before they raise it, and mine swung seventy points in two weeks. That is the stamina bill. If you
have solid fundamentals but you have plateaued on a score that looks fine on paper and suspect you are
grinding the wrong difficulty without knowing it, this is the course that tells you where the points are
going

Read More

Took 2 months full course access. Overall good source for preparation. Cementing quiz are helpful to build topic wise understanding. Analytics of the platform to track the progress and identify the weakness is also good. Availability of same instructor is a little challenge, but if there is any query some other instructor will address. Verbal CR solving methods are quite helpful. Solutions provided for questions are very comprehensive. Also the feature to skip a topic in quant based on initial assessment is helpful to save time. Mock tests are also relevant in GMAT exam format. It is recommended to consult mentor after every mock test and strengthen weaker section before attempting next mock test as the number of tests are limited.

Read More

I used Expert's Global full preparation material for my GMAT preparation and found it quite helpful. The concepts are explained clearly, and there is a good amount of practice available. I especially liked the variety of questions and the detailed explanations, which helped me understand my mistakes and improve my approach.
There is enough material to practice different topics and difficulty levels, so I could focus more on areas where I was struggling. The only thing I found slightly difficult was deciding how much of the material to cover, as there is quite a lot of it honestly.
Overall, I found the material useful and well-structured.

Read More

Experts’ Global platform is a reasonably good option for additional GMAT practice. I found the overall test interface and structure fairly similar to the actual GMAT, which makes the mocks useful for getting comfortable with the exam environment and managing time under pressure. The tests also provide enough variety to practice different concepts and identify recurring mistakes. The post-test analysis and explanations are useful for reviewing incorrect answers and understanding areas that need more work. However, I would still recommend using the official GMAT mocks as the primary benchmark for judging actual exam readiness. A few questions, particularly in Verbal, did not feel completely representative of the official style, and some tests could have a more balanced topic distribution. Overall, I would rate Experts’ Global as a useful supplementary resource, especially for gaining additional full-length practice and improving timing and consistency.

Read More