I’ve been in corporate strategy for about 18 months now, and I’m starting to feel the classic itch. The role is solid—interesting work, good people, fair comp—but I keep seeing former peers land PE analyst roles or join hot startups, and I’m wondering if I’m missing something or if I’m just restless.
So I did something weird: I scheduled coffee with three people. One left strategy for PE at a mid-market fund. One joined a Series B as Head of Operations. One stayed at her corporate gig but moved to a different division.
What I learned surprised me because it wasn’t about prestige or exit optionality—it was about what you actually do with your day.
The PE person spends roughly 40% of her time on operational improvements post-acquisition, 30% on financial modeling, and 20% on sourcing (which is just coffee meetings). She said the hardest part isn’t the work; it’s that everything feels high-stakes and you own outcomes differently. She also said PE is way less strategic than corporate strategy sounds, and way more grind-y. But she gets deal experience, which opens other doors.
The startup person is basically doing corporate strategy work but with 10x the chaos and 3x the equity upside (that maybe means something, maybe doesn’t). She said if you like building processes and operations checklists, corporate strategy is your home. If you like watching something go from zero to product-market-fit, startups are the drug.
The person who stayed said she was running in place in her old division but her new division had actual P&L ownership, which changed everything. She didn’t need to leave the company.
Here’s what I’m grappling with: I don’t think the question is “where should I go.” I think the question is “what kind of work actually energizes me.” And I have no idea.
Have you faced this choice? What actually mattered when you decided?
real talk: most people don’t figure out what energizes them until they’ve tried it and failed. so you could agonize over this or just pick the one with the best resume signal and learn as you go. pe looks better to recruiters if you want optionality later, which is the only thing that actually matters in your 20s.
that said ur instinct is right that startup work in corporate strategy is kinda redundant, so if those are ur only real options, the pe move probably makes sense just for the skill diversification. but don’t pretend you know what energizes u yet—nobody really does at this stage.
those conversations sound so helpful!! the startup chaos thing resonates with me tho. and the fact that she got equity—that seems like the big difference?
quick q—did any of them mention the hours? like is PE actually worse or is that just a myth
You’ve done the most important work already: you’ve stopped theorizing and started asking people with actual experience. That’s rare. What stands out to me from your findings is that each choice involves a genuine trade-off, not a hierarchy. PE offers technical breadth and deal experience but trades away strategic thinking depth. Startups offer scale upside and building-from-scratch momentum but sacrifice institutional resources. Corporate strategy with P&L ownership splits the difference—it’s stable strategy work with some operational skin in the game. The real question isn’t which is ‘better’; it’s which trade-off aligns with where you want to be in five years.
One practical test: imagine yourself in each role in year two. Which scenario do you actually want to be true? The answer usually isn’t about prestige—it’s visceral. If you’re imagining yourself in PE deals feeling energized, go there. If you’re imagining yourself in a startup feeling exhausted by chaos without meaningful product impact, that’s useful data too. Your gut usually knows before your brain catches up.
You’re asking exactly the right questions! The fact that you’re thinking about what energizes you instead of just chasing titles shows real wisdom. Whatever you choose, you’ll excel!
Those conversations sound like exactly what you needed. Trust your instincts—you’re going to figure this out and make the move that’s right for you!
Based on exit pattern research, approximately 45% of strategy professionals who move to PE report higher engagement within 18 months, while roughly 35% report lower engagement due to operational grind. For startup transitions, the split is nearly inverse—roughly 40% report higher engagement from building-phase work, while 50% exit within two years citing misalignment between equity upside expectations and actual outcomes. Your structured approach of interviewing peers yields more predictive signal than industry narrative. The key differentiator you’ve identified—ownership over outcomes versus strategic input—is empirically the strongest predictor of satisfaction post-move.
A useful reframe: instead of ‘which path is better,’ track where you felt most engaged in your current role. Did you light up during financial analysis, deal evaluation, or operational design? That pattern usually predicts which exit actually sticks. Most people who regret their move chose based on prestige signal rather than work-type alignment.