Most people prepping for IB/PE/HF interviews grind the same three things: walk me through a DCF, walk me through an LBO, tell me about a deal. Fine. Necessary. But here's the question that actually separates candidates in the room, and almost nobody drills it:

"Which of these two valuation methods would give you a higher number, and why?"

Not "explain DCF" or "explain comps." The comparison. Interviewers ask this constantly because it tests whether you actually understand the mechanics or just memorized the steps.

Quick framework if you get hit with this:

• DCF vs. Comps: DCF is usually higher because it's not anchored to current market sentiment — if the market is depressed or the comp set is trading cheap, DCF captures intrinsic value that the market hasn't priced in yet. Comps will drag your number toward whatever multiple the market is currently willing to pay.

• DCF vs. LBO: LBO output is a floor, not a fair value — it's the price a financial sponsor can pay and still hit their required IRR. It ignores strategic/synergy value entirely, so it's almost always lower than a DCF or a strategic buyer's number.

• Precedent transactions vs. trading comps: precedent transactions are almost always higher because they bake in a control premium — you're paying for the entire company plus the right to make changes.

The pattern: every method answers a different question (what's it worth today in the market vs. what can a sponsor pay vs. what would a buyer pay for control). Once you frame it that way instead of memorizing formulas, this question stops being scary and starts being a place to show off.

If you're deep in recruiting season right now — good luck. It's a grind, but the people who understand the why behind these models are the ones who stop fumbling case studies and start getting offers.