I guess i think you can have two motivations for exam sitting: internal (to learn risk) or external (to get a better job, switch into better job, do a better job), or combination.
If motive is internal (learn risk): I think they have more in common, than differences. Both seem like strong, broad introductions to risk. The FRM's cirriculum is more dynamic (updating, changing). That has obvious advantages and some painful disadvantages (e.g., definitional conflicts in terminology). I'm personally fond of PRMIA: They are non-profit, seem to have some very loyal members, and they affiliate with absolutely world class-intellectual leadership (e.g., Carol Alexander is Chair of their Academic Advisory). A few years ago, it was common to hear that the PRM is more quantitative. This is no longer true: as the PRM quant has been relatively static for 4+ years, the FRM is currently at least as quantitatively demanding, or (my opinion) actually more quantitatively demanding, b/c it has changed tremendously in the last 4 years. (this change is not free: my alert customers are painfully aware of the internal inconsistencies created by rapid introduction of new material).
if motive is external (e.g., recognition): opinion vary and it is currently a dynamic environment, but the FRM has more market penetration. I don't know why exactly, I feel PRM deserves to be on a par, but GARP has been more successful in market penetration (they did have a head start, of course ... but even accounting for the head start, current FRM candidate registration growth rate is *clearly* trumping same in PRM). If you look at, say, current number registrants, I would estimate (just based on anecdotal discussions, okay?) GARP has 6X to 9X, almost an order of magnitude greater. I don't think there is much doubt that FRM is winning the popularity contest. (I have been asked to enter PRM, frankly, several times ... but the market doesn't seem large enough. I am in FRM b/c it's much bigger market, to tell the truth ... otherwise I'd be in PRM b/c they are more similiar to my value system) ... and, then there is an acid-test: which appears more often in job requirements? My impression is FRM is winning on this front, too .... PRMIA may do better with universities, I am not sure? (and then, some PRMIA folks made the argument, to me, that PRMIA is more respected in Europe, which i can't speak to)
I'd be interested in other observations, agree/disagree?
I am a Relationship Manager - Retail Banking with a private bank in India. I want to shift to Risk Management. In this regard it would be very kind of you if you recommend a course which would help me in making the shift to Risk Management as I don't think that the shift can be made without specialised knowledge.
@Ankan: I think it's fair to say that, in regard to cerfitications/designations, the two market leaders are PRM and FRM. In regard to courses, you have many choices. Our new site is going to feature many such choices, including (for example) offering from our new strategic partner KESDEE. (courses @ http://www.kesdee.com/coursecatalog.jsp)
@Smith00: assuming you are are not spam, although i agree with all of your other sentences one of them is easily incorrect: "Also PRM includes mathematics as opposed to FRM." The FRM is at least as quantitative, and currently, arguably more quantitative than the PRM (the weakness of the PRM is that it does not update). There are differences at the margin, but mostly the required math is very similar.
I'd say not to fall into the trap of FRM and PRM confusion. One has to analyze and take their own decision. The only thing I'm concerned here is that none of the Board Trustees of GARP hold FRM credential. I do not understand why? I do not know about PRM Board Trustees if they hold PRM. However, that does not mean these credentials are not good.