Ranking Methodology

Our Team

The team at MBAGuide.org responsible for school rankings consists of data science and product management experts and works independently from the editorial team and is not influenced by editorial decisions.

Ranking Methodology for Best MBA Programs and Best Value MBA Programs

• Best Online MBA Program by State
• Best In-Person or Campus MBA Program by State
• Best Online MBA Program by Concentration
• Best In-Person or Campus MBA Program by Concentration
• Most Affordable Online MBA Program by State
• Most Affordable MBA Program by Concentration
• 100 Most Affordable Online MBA Programs in America
• 100 Most Affordable In-Person or Campus MBA Programs in America

Each year, we visit each business school website in the United States including all 556 AACSB accredited programs and an additional 294 ACBSP, IACBE and EQUIS accredited programs. We aggregate data that prospective MBA Students need to know such business school accreditations, in-state tuition, out-of-state tuition, graduate salary, graduate ROI, GMAT requirements, avg. GMAT score, student / faculty ratio, total business school enrollment, MBA program enrollment, business degree level(s) offered (Certificate, BA, BS, MBA, Master’s, EMBA, DBA), offered as (full-time, part-time, online, in-person, online, weekend, nights, 1-year), number of concentrations, list of concentrations, MBA program founded, duration of the program, credits for the program completion, in-state cost per credit, out-of-state cost per credit, class size, top placement industries, top placement functions, intakes, application deadlines from each school.

Additional, we source data from the following government sources: IPEDS, U.S. Department of Education (ED), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Projections Central, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Official State-by-State Projections, O*Net Online (ONET), Accrediting Agencies (AACSB, ACBSP, IACBE and EQUIS)

With nearly 500,000 data points, MBAGuide.org employs a comprehensive methodology to rank MBA programs, combining quantitative data with qualitative assessments. The overall ranking score is calculated using two main components:

1. Ranking Factors (80% of Overall Score): This component is based on a weighted average of several key factors:
   • Tuition and Fees for In-state MBA (20%): Assesses affordability, with lower costs ranked higher.
     • For affordability rankings < 50% of State or Concentration Average
   • Average Salary After Graduation (20%): Measures program value, with higher salaries ranked better.*
   • Estimated Graduate ROI (20%): Estimates the total graduate value of a business degree upon graduations*
   • Student/Faculty Ratio (5%): Measures faculty strength, with lower ratios ranked higher.*
   • Total Enrollment (5%): Reflects alumni strength, with higher enrollment ranked better.
   • Total Concentrations (5%): Indicates breadth of program, with more concentrations ranked higher.
   • 3rd Party Rankings (5%): Considers presence in other rankings as a measure of program strength.
   • Average GMAT Score (5%): Evaluates selectivity, with higher scores ranked better.
     • If GMAT/GRE isn’t required, this is a neutral ranking point
   • AACSB Accreditation (5%): Indicates program quality, with accredited programs ranked higher.
2. MBAGuide.org’s Expert Evaluation Score (EES) – represents 10% of the overall methodology and addresses a core frustration of prospective MBA students. We rate schools 1-5 on how easily you can find basic information (25%), whether all costs are clearly disclosed upfront (25%), if admission requirements are clearly stated (25%), and outcome transparency (25%).

Ranking Factor	Reason	Factor	Ranking Percent
Tuition and Fees-MBA: In state – Affordability Rankings (< 50% of State Average)	Affordability	Low to High	20
Average Salary After Graduation*	Value of Program	High to Low	20
Estimated Graduate ROI*	Graduate Value	High to Low	20
Expert Evaluation Score (EES)	School Information Transparency	High to Low	10
Student / Faculty Ratio All	Faculty Strength	Low to High	5
Total Enrollment All	Alumni Strength	High to Low	5
Total Concentrations	Breadth of Program	High to Low	5
3rd Party Rankings	Recognition of Program	Yes or No	5
Average GMAT Score*	Selectivity of Program	High to Low	5
AACSB Accreditation	Quality of Program	Yes or No	5

This methodology aims to provide a balanced view of MBA programs by considering program quality, affordability, career outcomes, and academic reputation. The combination of quantitative metrics and Expert Evaluation input allows for a comprehensive evaluation of each program’s strengths and overall value to prospective students.

The data for these rankings is collected from multiple authoritative sources, including:

• Individual University and MBA Program Pages
• Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
• Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP)
• Department of Education’s College Scorecard
• U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Rankings
• Bureau of Labor Statistics Salary Data
• Department of Labor Projected Employment
• Bureau of Economic Analysis Cost of Living Data

How Do We Estimate the Graduate Salaries for MBA Programs

^*For Graduate Salary data and by extension calculating Graduate ROI*, we use data reported directly by the schools. In cases where schools do not report this data we used the following method to come up with an individual school estimate.

• Map common MBA outcomes to BLS occupations (e.g., management analysts, marketing/financial/HR managers, healthcare administrators).
• Pull latest national wage anchors from BLS OOH/OEWS for each occupation.
• Localize pay to the relevant metro/state using OEWS location-specific wage estimates.
• Position “first-year post‑MBA” at the P25–P50 range for each occupation (higher if career-advancer, lower if career-switcher).
• Create a neutral role mix (e.g., consulting, finance, marketing/product, ops, HR, healthcare) and weight each role’s localized wage accordingly.
• Blend the weighted roles to produce a conservative salary band per program/market.
• Weight assumptions: occupations selected, data vintage, geography, percentile choice, and any industry/geography adjustments.
• We do a sanity-check with recent non-government indicators; treat them as directional, keeping BLS as the baseline and then we did secondary sanity check when data was available from trusted secondary sources such as U.S. News and World Report, PayScale, Niche, CollegeFactual, CollegeSimply and compared the two.

How to Use Our Data and Rankings*

Our Data Transparency Commitment

Our data and our rankings are not perfect. No ranking system can identify the optimal MBA program for your specific career objectives. While established ranking publications emphasize prestige and reputation metrics for a select group of elite institutions, we have chosen to democratize business education evaluation by comprehensively ranking all AACSB-accredited MBA programs, and many of ACBSP, IACBE, and EQUIS accredited programs.

We provide our information and methodologies for educational purposes only and strongly encourage prospective students to independently verify our data for programs under serious consideration.

The Transparency Challenge in Business Education

A fundamental frustration driving our approach is the opacity many business schools maintain regarding critical information that financially-conscious, data-driven prospective students require for informed decision-making. This creates an ironic situation where students will later be expected to produce accurate financial projections and detailed analyses in their coursework and careers, while the institutions training them often fail to provide the same level of precision and transparency about their own programs.

Schools demonstrating poor transparency practices receive lower rankings in our methodology. When institutions are unclear about essential metrics—graduate employment rates, average starting salaries, return on investment calculations, GMAT/GRE requirements, student-to-faculty ratios, or the proportion of full-time versus adjunct faculty—we apply lower scores. In cases where schools withhold salary data or provide only vague references to broad GMAC industry studies rather than program-specific outcomes, we develop estimates using available data points and welcome corrections from schools that can provide substantiated information published on their official websites.

Our Methodology and Scope

Unlike traditional rankings that evaluate approximately 100 programs, we maintain comprehensive coverage of all 556 AACSB-accredited MBA programs, plus additional programs holding ACBSP, IACBE, and EQUIS accreditation. This approach ensures that students across all educational levels and geographic regions have access to comparative data, not just those targeting elite institutions.

Our evaluation framework prioritizes institutional transparency and accessibility of information. We measure how easily prospective students can obtain clear, accurate data about program costs, admission requirements, faculty composition, and graduate outcomes. This transparency-focused approach differs significantly from methodologies that emphasize subjective reputation surveys or input metrics like average test scores.

Data Limitations and Industry Challenges

The business education ranking industry faces systemic data integrity challenges that affect all evaluation systems. Self-reported institutional data, inconsistent survey methodologies, and low response rates from graduates create inherent limitations in any ranking framework. Many schools either decline to participate in ranking surveys or provide incomplete information, particularly regarding sensitive metrics like employment rates and salary outcomes.

GMAC studies, while valuable for industry-wide trends, often provide broad, international averages that may not reflect specific program, geographic, or concentration-based outcomes. Schools frequently cite these general industry reports rather than disclosing their own program-specific graduate performance data, making meaningful institutional comparisons difficult for prospective students.

Commitment to Accuracy and Improvement

We acknowledge these systemic limitations while maintaining our commitment to transparency and continuous improvement. When we encounter incomplete institutional data, we apply rigorous estimation methodologies based on available information from peer institutions, regional employment markets, and historical trends. However, we prioritize actual institutional data whenever available and actively encourage schools to provide accurate, substantiated information through their official communications channels.

If you identify data errors or discrepancies in our database for your institution, region, or state, please contact us. We maintain an ongoing commitment to data accuracy and welcome corrections supported by official documentation from accredited institutions.

Our goal remains democratizing access to business education information while maintaining the highest possible standards of data integrity within the constraints of institutional transparency practices across the industry.