What's new

Comparability - Practice Exam / Actual Exam


Good evening all,

Thanks to the very useful ressources area on the BT website, I realized that a lot of questions are actually very similar from one practice exam to the next.

The question I have is: Are these practice exams really representative of the actual exams? I just did the latest practice exam and I feel a bit too confident after this... (given what I read on forum after the May 2016 exam).

Any thoughts?



How do you feel now? I took 4 practice exams (between Schweser, GARP, and Wiley). I scored the lowest on Wiley, highest on GARP. The actual exam? Nothing like the practice ones. If I failed Part I, I'm buying a year long subscription for Parts I and II here b/c apparently the questions are a better representation.


I would say quantitative questions were roughly in line with GARP practice exam although some were maybe a bjt more tricky (but my judgement might be biased by the exam stress)
However a striking difference to me is the difficulty of qualitative questions.. GARP practice is really too simple in this aspect compared to the exam I think.
I was taking part 2 this year and I hope to be done with it... but all we can do now is cross our fingers!


New Member
Hi David and Nicole,

I would request BT to take this feedback and try to prepare 3-4 full length (100 questions) practice test close to real exam. We just have 4 practice test with 25 questions each.



I thought the practice exams were slightly to moderately easier than the most recent exam. A lot of it may have just been bias in repeated questions from year to year. I would say that the format and way they word the questions are pretty similar, so it is worth doing the practice exams from previous years. I just felt like in the actual exam, they tend to incorporate multiple aspects into a question (i.e. FX on a 2-step binomial option pricing question)

It seems like this year GARP has decided to come up with a full-length practice exam with relevant questions based on this 2017 AIMs, so maybe it's a better gauge of questions that will be on the exam.


New Member
It seems like most of the comments about the FRM exam are that it is too hard, that questions involve multi-steps and multi-topics, the practice questions are easier, it is getting tougher, etc.

Well, risk management is inherently complex. The problems we're dealing with are much harder than what's on the exam.

Honestly, I think the FRM exam should be TOUGHER. The risks faced by banks are multi-disciplinary and very complex. There are so many areas covered in these exams that should be treated at a deeper level.

Just look at the actuarial exams. These are the toughest exams in insurance and pensions. But once you pass these and get your actuarial designations, your employability, salary, career progression vastly increase. The actuarial designations are very hard to get but highly regarded.

When I was working as an actuary before, even the accountants were asking us actuaries questions about complex insurance accounting issues. Why? Because these accounting complexities are covered in great detail in actuarial exams but not in CPA. Actuaries have even more expertise on insurance accounting that the CPAs working in the insurance industry. Imagine that.

The standards set by the actuarial profession to pass the actuarial exams are extremely high. It makes sense. The solvency of the insurance companies are at stake.

ONLY actuaries are qualified to issue actuarial opinions.

You don't want FRM to be an "easy" test. Otherwise it will lose its value. In order for it to be the gold standard in banking, it has to remain a tough exam, or even tougher.

What value does a designation bring if everybody can pass it?