A clean run at hard prime-number questions is not what I expected out of this prep. I opened those quizzes getting one in five right; inside a week I was at ninety percent. Quant finished as my strongest section — an 85, up from the 81 on an earlier official attempt. Final result: 675 (V83, Q85, DI82).

The problem I arrived with will sound familiar if your score looks like it ought to be higher. Mine was a 595 — respectable enough to be useless as a diagnosis. I could not tell which habits were costing me points, so I kept drilling the wrong things. e-GMAT converts your target score, date and weekly hours into a sequenced plan, and its Personalized Study Plan is built for triage: it decides which section comes first and what is realistically fixable before your exam, instead of letting you graze across all three. PACE narrows it further — brief diagnostic quizzes taken before a topic, which report back which lessons you can skip entirely and which you genuinely need, so no time goes into relearning what you have.

What the plan pointed at, and what actually fixed it:

Cementing quizzes after each topic showed I was solid across Quant except in number properties, primes most of all. They sit at real exam difficulty, which is why that opening score read as information, not discouragement.
Scholaranium's topic-level analytics let me drop a layer into which sub-areas were failing, and the solutions on my misses revealed the concept was never the problem — my approach was slower and leakier than the one being taught. Re-drilling carried hard number properties to ninety percent, and hard word problems from twenty to ninety.
Quant sectional mocks turned accuracy into execution: whole sections under exam timing, coming in 86, 80, 79, 82, 79, 82 before the real 85.

This is where e-GMAT genuinely separates itself, and not on how many questions there are. A hard quiz here behaves like a hard exam question, so the number it returns is a diagnosis you can act on rather than false comfort. My worst quant block was the sales-and-purchase word problem, where I would begin the algebra before I had written anything down. Committing the whole setup to paper first — every figure, every restriction, unglamorous and slow — took that block to ninety percent on hard questions.

One honest caveat: finishing one section before opening the next is draining, and for weeks it feels like standing still. My mentor, Kavyashree, held that line when I asked to run two at once, and the Last Mile Push mentorship in the closing stretch was largely reassurance and pattern-spotting — going through my block-level numbers with me, telling me when a bad week meant nothing.

If your fundamentals are real but your score has plateaued, and you suspect you are grinding the wrong difficulty without knowing it, this is the one.

Read More

Strengths:

Excellent question bank, challenging practice, structured preparation, and the LMP mentorship program. Jagadish was a great mentor and provided consistent guidance throughout my preparation.

Would make the product better:

The learning modules could be made more concise and engaging, with a stronger focus on the most important concepts and less repetition.



What the platform did for me, what it did not, and why my first reaction to the score was disappointment.

When the 665 came up on the screen my first reaction was disappointment. It was better than the 615 I walked in with, but I had written 725 on my plan back in April, and the thought that went through my head in that first second was that I might have to do all of this again. The gap between those two numbers had felt large when I set it. I have always believed that if you aim for the stars you at least reach the moon. I reached the moon. I was still hoping for more.

I had already sat the GMAT once and scored a 615 before I came here. I looked at other options, TTP among them, and I chose e-GMAT because it cost less. That was the reason.

Quant is where the course earned its money for me. I went from an 81 to an 87. What did it was practising hard questions in Scholaranium, the practice engine where you build your own timed quizzes at whatever difficulty you pick. It pushed me well past the level I was comfortable at, and the effect showed up on the day: Quant felt close to a breeze. If you take one thing from this review, take that. Questions pitched above your level are what this platform is for.

That difficulty is also why the exam itself felt manageable. The Sigma-X full-lengths run harder than the real thing, and by test day the questions in front of me were not the hardest I had seen. The one caution is that it works on the scores too. Four days before my date my best mock was a 585, and I scored a 665.

Verbal is where I fell short. My target was an 87 and I got an 81, after roughly six weeks on the section. Some of that was the day itself: it was the first time I had taken Verbal as my last section with no break before it, and I felt the difference. Some of it was method. The course teaches pre-thinking, working out what a correct answer would have to do before you look at the five options. I understood the idea and I could find the gap in the argument, but under exam pressure I dropped the prediction step and went straight to the choices, because the number of things the answer could say felt endless and building that list felt too slow with the clock running.

On Data Insights I want to correct my own mock data, because it makes the story look different from what happened. One of my DI mock scores was a 66, and that was a section I had to abandon halfway through for a meeting. My DI did not improve here. I had an 81 before e-GMAT and I scored an 81 on this attempt. It was already one of my stronger sections.

The mentorship is the part I would put hardest to anyone considering this. I was on the LMP program with Jagadish, and he was there consistently: supportive, easy to reach, steady with the guidance week to week. It kept me focused and kept my confidence up when the numbers were not doing that. When I sent him a thirty-six question Critical Reasoning error log he came back with one diagnosis for the whole thing, that I was reaching the options before I had pinned down what the right answer needed to do. He was right.

At the start of August I made a call about the last stretch. My R1 deadline was fixed, I had spent a long time on modules and cementing quizzes, and what I needed was to be sitting full-lengths. So I told Jagadish I was going to take the remaining preparation into my own hands and put it all on test-taking. If I had the time again I would go slower through the modules and work them properly. What I would not change is what came after: about a week out from the exam I came back to him, and we spent the closing stretch on sectionals and full mocks with the logs read line by line. Going into the exam off the back of that week was the right way to finish.

One habit that helped was the error log. I started keeping an error log because I had seen several YouTube interview videos emphasizing how useful they are for GMAT preparation. It helped me identify patterns in the mistakes I was making and, more importantly, gave me something to refer back to so I wouldn't keep repeating the same mistakes.

I would recommend e-GMAT to anyone preparing seriously, and especially if what you want is practice above the level of the real exam so test day feels manageable by comparison. The question bank, the hard sets in particular, is good and it is what moved my Quant, and the LMP mentorship is worth taking if you are offered it. The one change I would ask for is on the learning modules: they could be more concise and more engaging, with a stronger focus on the concepts that matter most and less repetition.

Read More

Strengths:

I finished with a 715 (V89, Q84, DI83) on my third attempt. The section that carried it, a V89, had been my lowest on the very first mock I ever took. But the thing I actually needed help with is something nobody warns you about: the high plateau. I was sitting at 675, every section looked fine on paper, and I could not tell where 40 more points were supposed to come from. My instinct was to redo the whole syllabus. e-GMAT's Personalized Study Plan talked me out of that. It takes your target and timeline and lays out what is actually worth your hours, so instead of restudying everything I walked in with a short list.

Would make the product better:

The real finding happened in Scholaranium, the practice bank whose analytics break your performance down by question type and difficulty instead of just by section. That is where my scorecard stopped flattering me. Hard Critical Reasoning looked healthy at 80 percent overall, but the inference questions inside it were at 50 while assumption, strengthen and weaken all sat at 90. So I stopped grinding CR in general and drilled inference on its own, training myself to work out what the passage actually guarantees before looking at the options. Closing that one block took my verbal from 84 to 89. Same story in quant. Hard Word Problems kept coming back weak, and reviewing the worked solutions showed me my setups were slow and roundabout. Once I redid the block with cleaner setups it climbed to 80 percent by late July. Multi Source Reasoning turned out to be my hidden DI leak, and the course's MSR sets, which are basically case study reading, pulled my hard reasoning accuracy to 90 and DI from 80 to 83.

What changed most, though, was judgment. I used to force answers on questions that were never worth the time. By the end I could tell within seconds whether a question was inside my range at that moment, and I let the rest go without ego. The Last Mile Push mentorship had a lot to do with that. My mentor, Shubham, went through my data with me and reframed every sitting as just another practice attempt, so I walked into the real exam calm instead of desperate. One honest note: the questions here run harder than the official ones, and that stings in the middle weeks. On test day it means the real paper reads a step easier. If you are somewhere between 650 and 685 with decent fundamentals and a nagging sense that your effort is going into the wrong places, this is the course I would point you to. It shows you the exact blocks that are costing you points, and lets you fix only those.

Read More

Quant was the worst section I had. On my first attempt it came back an 80, the 64th percentile, below both my other sections. On 1st August it came back an 87, the 94th, and it was the strongest thing on my report. My plan had asked for an 88. Effort was not what closed that gap; I had plenty of effort. What I did not have was resolution, meaning a way of seeing which part of my preparation was actually failing.

If you are holding a decent score that feels like it should be higher, you will recognise the position. Preparation sits in pockets. You pick a topic, do some questions, and never really know how much of it has landed until much later, when it either converges or it does not. The first thing e-GMAT did was stop me wasting time. PACE is a set of short diagnostic quizzes you sit before studying a topic, and basis how you do, it tells you which lessons to skip and which ones you genuinely need. I never re-learned percentages, which I was already fine at.

What changed things was Scholaranium, the practice engine. My first timed Number Properties quiz there came back 2 correct out of 10, and my instinct was to go and sit the whole subsection again. That is not what the numbers were saying. Scholaranium does not report a subsection as a single score. It splits it into blocks, which are groupings of closely related skills scored separately, and Number Properties arrives as four of them: basics and even-odd, LCM and primes, divisibility with remainders and unit digits, and statistics. Two of those four were responsible for nearly all of it. The other two were healthy. I carried those two into Neuron, the library where every official-style question comes with a complete step-by-step solution, held my route against theirs, and switched to the shorter one. 50% became 90%. Advanced Topics repeated it exactly: three attempts frozen at the same figure, one block underneath causing it at 2 correct out of 11, next attempt doubled.

This is where e-GMAT stands apart for me. Scholaranium is pitched above the real exam. My accuracy there sat some 15 points below what I posted on official-style questions, and the difference is deliberate. It pressure-tests you. The sectional mocks, which are full timed sections rather than short quizzes, then convert what you know into something you can deliver against a clock. The testing is accurate too. I sat exactly one full-length, 6 days before the exam, and it predicted my real score to within 10 points.

The mentorship is the part I would pay for again. I always turned up with my own analysis. I would work a mock through on my own and come holding a hypothesis about what had broken. Dhruv's value was reading the same numbers and resizing that theory. I had called it nerves; he showed me I was spending adequate time on the questions I was getting wrong, which made it a process problem I could actually go and fix. Jagadish took the error logs I had been keeping and compressed 30 entries into 2 habits, so on test day I was watching 2 specific slips instead of a list.

It is not a light course. The content is heavy, it took far longer than I had estimated, and there were weeks where it felt taxing. If you have real fundamentals and you are stuck without knowing why, I would still highly recommend it.

Read More

Strengths:

e-GMAT is built for the candidate who is starting a long way from their target and does not yet believe a 160-point jump is possible. That was me: I opened with a 515 on my diagnostic, only the 32nd percentile, and finished at a 675. What made the difference is that e-GMAT does not just hand you content, it installs a repeatable process for every question type and drills it until it runs on its own under pressure. It teaches Verbal, my weakest area and the reason I chose the program, through the Master Comprehension course and its pre-thinking method, which trains you to decide what a correct answer must do before you look at the options instead of reading and guessing. On the Quant side, the PACE engine runs a short diagnostic before each topic and sends you only to the lessons you need, so as an engineer who had forgotten a few school-level formulas, I skipped what I knew and fixed the rusty spots fast. That combination took my Verbal from a V75 to a V84 and my Quant from a Q83 to a Q86.

Where e-GMAT proves its worth is in the machinery that turns practice into a real score, because the program is honest that what you do between mocks matters more than the mocks themselves. The error log is central to that: it made me record not just which questions I missed but why, so a recurring habit, in my case ignoring a stated condition in Data Sufficiency, became visible enough to fix. The sectional and full-length mocks then rebuilt my execution under the clock, and a time-management module retimed how I paced Data Insights, which carried DI from a 67, a negligible percentile, all the way to an 81. Just as importantly, the daily light drills on the Neuron question bank kept Verbal and Quant sharp while I moved on to new sections, so nothing went cold, and when I took a two-week break after falling ill, a short review showed the skills were only rusty rather than gone. That is the payoff of a system designed around retention, not just teaching.
The honest caveat is that the program is demanding and the process feels slow and unnatural before it feels automatic, but that friction is the entire reason it holds up on exam day rather than only in practice. The other half of what carried me was the mentorship. Every day I sent my mentor Shubham a note on what I had studied, and he would identify exactly where I slipped and lay out the next day's plan, steadying me through a rocky mock trajectory and the test-day nerves that had undone me in past exams. That daily loop of doing, analysing, and adjusting, guided by someone who had seen my whole journey, is what a self-study book can never replicate. If you are staring at a starting score that makes your target feel impossible, this is the program that closes that gap, provided you trust the process even when your instincts resist it.

Read More

Strengths:

Here is what e-GMAT did for a candidate who was supposedly good at math and still scored a Q79 on a real GMAT: it rebuilt his Quant into a Q88. That is the result worth pausing on, because it did not come from someone weak at the subject, it came from someone strong at it who the exam had quietly humbled. The single most striking change:
Quant — what e-GMAT changed
Score: Q79 (57th %ile) → Q88
PACE engine saved ~38.5–39 hours of prep time

The reason that turnaround happened is that the product diagnoses the real problem instead of drowning you in more content. From the first day, its automated question-level tracking captures every answer and shows you, without any guessing, exactly which areas you are scoring lowest in. Layered on top is the PACE engine, which tests you before each topic and lets you skip whatever you have already mastered — and crucially, where your concept is fine but your accuracy is not, it does not re-teach the whole topic, it sends you straight to the specific questions you keep missing. For a candidate re-preparing, that combination turned what could have been weeks of wasted revision into a targeted campaign against genuine weaknesses, and it is what saved him close to 40 hours.

Would make the product better:

Where e-GMAT truly separates itself is in building exam readiness rather than just knowledge, and this is the part most prep ignores. Its full-length exams, cementing quizzes, and section drills practise at the real test's difficulty, so a candidate who had been blindsided by the exam the first time walked into the actual Quant section and found it comparatively easy. Its question-wise timer builds hard timing discipline, powering a strict rule to abandon any question after three and a half minutes so that points stop leaking from unfinished sections, and the GMAT Club mocks it includes deliberately remove that per-question timer to train you to budget time in chunks the way the real exam demands. Holding it all together is PRISM, the data analytics that classifies every mistake as conceptual or time-based, flags even the questions you answer correctly but too slowly, and suggests faster approaches, with e-GMAT's own expert forums a click away whenever you need a different angle.

One honest caveat, because a review should be believable: e-GMAT will not let a strong-at-math ego coast. Its data will tell you the uncomfortable truth that your concepts were probably never the problem, that your application and your timing were, and sitting with that honesty is demanding. But that is precisely what moves the score. The transformation here is the classic one this product is built for — a candidate certain his concepts were the issue learned instead to picture what a question is really after and to respect the clock over his pride, and a Q79 became a Q88. If you are good at math but the GMAT humbled you, this is the program that shows you the real gap and closes it.

Read More

Strengths:

Here is what e-GMAT did for a non-native English speaker who started at a 565: it built him a V84 — in the very section people like me are told to fear. Before any of the teaching, one number captures what this product actually does:
Hard Reading Comprehension — what e-GMAT changed
Accuracy: 56% → 73%
Time per passage: 2m 54s → 1m 42s (over a minute saved)

That single result is the product in miniature: it does not just add knowledge, it rebuilds how fast and how confidently you read. The engine behind it is a plan that refuses to let you drift:
● The Personalized Study Plan sequences your entire prep and forces genuine mastery of one concept before unlocking the next.
● It deliberately front-loads Verbal, because those skills feed every other section.
● The data analytics diagnoses for you, sorting performance down to the question type — inference questions, in my case — so scarce hours land on the real weakness.

Would make the product better:

Where e-GMAT truly separates itself is in how its tools rebuild each section, one feeding the next:
● The Reading Comprehension course's chunk-by-chunk method turned long passages from a trap into something readable — the 56-to-73 percent jump above came straight from it.
● The Critical Reasoning course, sequenced first by design, becomes the logic engine for everything after it.
● The Quant course channels that logic through structure-by-structure teaching, carrying a Q79 to a Q84.
● The Data Insights course tackles the confusing graph and multi-source questions that reward reading skill, lifting a 73 to an 82.
● Scholaranium supplies close to a thousand harder-than-official Data Insights questions, so the real exam feels easier than the training.

One honest caveat, because a review should be believable:
● The plan can feel like a real weight — it will not let you rush ahead until a concept is genuinely understood.
● That discipline is demanding, and some stretches were frustrating.
But that is exactly what produces the result. The clearest proof is the Reading Comprehension turnaround, where passages that once intimidated a non-native reader became something to move through quickly, with a V84 the outcome — and a mentor like Dhruv stays in your corner through the demanding stretches. If you are a non-native speaker who believes Verbal is a wall you will never climb, this is the program that turns it into your strongest foundation and carries the rest of your score up with it.

Read More

I enrolled for the Verbal Live Prep course at e-gmat in March. However, after procrastinating for 3 months i started doing the online modules provided by e-gmat in July. I started off with the Sentence correction section and i was simply amazed by the quality of their content. Each and every concept is covered in detailed and the post quizzes after each concept cement the concept in your mind (I cursed myself for wasting those 3 months).

I then started off with CR online modules and i also attended the live sessions taken by Rajat. Rajat is -the guy- for CR, the prethinking strategies really helped me a lot. I was really bad at CR but i have improved tremendously post the egmat CR course.

Lastly, the point that stands out for me is the support that e-gmat provides. Each of my query, till date, has been responded to within 24 hours. I would want to take this opportunity to thank Deepak for clearing all my doubts. I have seen significant improvement in the verbal section in the mocks that i have taken and i would owe that success to egmat. I hope to write a similar debrief thanking egmat once i take the actual exam.

Read More

Personally I feel is that e-GMAT Verbal Live Prep is the best course I found till date. I was struggling with my Verbal part. After going through the course I feel a bit more confident with my Verbal.

The course is very interactive and the strategies are best, what I personally feel, as it has helped me a lot. Especially in the SC and CR section the way to approach and solve the questions is good.

The Live session are good too, interactive and all the queries and doubts are clarified as if one is sitting in a proper classroom.

Overall I feel that this course is very helpful and worth a try if you are struggling with your Verbal.

Read More

I was introduced to e-GMAT course for verbal live prep through GMAT club and I am extremely satisfied with the course Content, the way verbal live sessions were scheduled and the delivery of the course.

Sentence correction section has explained all the fundamentals required to give you an upper hand in accessing the situation and increasing your accuracy in getting the right option. The live sessions by various faculties has been carried out in a systematic manner and interactive environment built in the session was so helpful.

There has been gradual increase in verbal score as we progress through every section and also e-GMAT has made the sessions very interesting.

Read More