[Virtus May]

I've heard on a number of occasions that the ACA is 'better' than CIMA. Is this really the case if I am more interested in management accounting?

I'm a Civil Engineering graduate about to start an MSc in Management, and will be making graduate applications soon. I've only done basic accounting for my undergraduate degree (cashflow, P&L, balance sheets, ratio analysis) so my knowledge of financial vs. management accounting is only superficial, but from what I've gathered management accounting is the way to go if I want to be involved in business strategy from the start.

I am particularly interested in working for an energy/technology firm as a finance analyst.

Should I be applying for CIMA roles? Or should I also be looking at Big 4/accounting firms as well?

I know that my question is rather vague, but to be honest it's because I've got no experience in the industry.

Thanks in advance.

[Tokyoround]

It's only "better" in the sense that it opens more doors and is more prestigous. If management accounting is your thing then CIMA would likely serve better than ACA. However if you find that you're bored of management accounts, it would be tough to go into something else with a CIMA. The ACA is more versatile really. You can still accomplish great things with a CIMA, the CFO of Shell has one.... but he also has a maths degree from cambridge.

[M1011]

If you want to do management accounting then CIMA is the better choice. It's not really a case of which is better, it's a case of which is relevant to your career. CIMA is a very good qualification to have on its own merits. Also, you can apply for CIMA roles at the big 4 as well if you want, some of the consultancy positions offer graduates CIMA training.

[emdo]

(Original post by Virtus May)
I've heard on a number of occasions that the ACA is 'better' than CIMA. Is this really the case if I am more interested in management accounting?

I'm a Civil Engineering graduate about to start an MSc in Management, and will be making graduate applications soon. I've only done basic accounting for my undergraduate degree (cashflow, P&L, balance sheets, ratio analysis) so my knowledge of financial vs. management accounting is only superficial, but from what I've gathered management accounting is the way to go if I want to be involved in business strategy from the start.

I am particularly interested in working for an energy/technology firm as a finance analyst.

Should I be applying for CIMA roles? Or should I also be looking at Big 4/accounting firms as well?

I know that my question is rather vague, but to be honest it's because I've got no experience in the industry.

Thanks in advance.

Not necessarily true.

As others have said, both have their merits.

I think how you use your qualification is very important and often dictates the path open to you. They often say ACA + training in big 4 and the world's your oyster. But doing CIMA/Multi - national in a top FTSE 100 company is nothing to sneeze at either.

I think either one is good, just depends on the experience you tailor it with.

Personally I'd say go for ACA - as that's what I'm doing... hehehe

[Virtus May]

(Original post by emdo)
Not necessarily true.

As others have said, both have their merits.

I think how you use your qualification is very important and often dictates the path open to you. They often say ACA + training in big 4 and the world's your oyster. But doing CIMA/Multi - national in a top FTSE 100 company is nothing to sneeze at either.

I think either one is good, just depends on the experience you tailor it with.

Personally I'd say go for ACA - as that's what I'm doing... hehehe

Could you elaborate?

[emdo]

(Original post by Virtus May)
Could you elaborate?

Sure, for example, I actually work for a a very big FTSE 100 energy company.

It offers both CIMA and ACA (and even the ACCA) as professional qualifications and all of them are viewed as 'equal' - that is, the company doesn't see one being better than the other two, etc.

Obviously, other people will have different views but I look at it this way: the fact is, if the company preferred a certain type of qualification they wouldn't offer the other - it's pretty expensive putting someone through any type of professional qualification.

Across the company, there are many different types of accountants (tbh, I've only come across a mixture of CIMA and ACA) and they are all spread out between the more traditional accounting roles to the less traditional roles (e.g business perfomance management, investor relations etc.).

While I think it's quite hard in general just to walk into any strategy role having CIMA or ACA will count in your favour - not against you.

Like I said, it doesn't really matter what qualification you do, it's the experience.

If you want to do CIMA - go for it, same with the ACA. I just think it's important to get actual 'industry' experience to end up in a strategy role.

But that's not to say the audit path is a no-go, many people complete their 3 years with an audit firm and move into industry, having trained/practised in an audit firm is a great positive for your CV

I hope that clears up what I meant

P.s: not to slate CIMA - takers, but I hear a lot of the CIMA grads at work blasting "CIMA is the better choice for industry" - if that was true, a considerate proportion of finance/strategic teams in such companies would vaporise into thin air.

Again, your choice of qualification + the right experience will get you where you need to go...

[poony]

CIMA equals to ACA ? I don't think so, ACA exams. are harder as a start, CIMA cannot sign off any co. account.

People who qualified with CIMA will disagree but if someone is capable doing ACA, why go for CIMA? Keep your option opened if you can.

That's my opinion after my 9 yrs working btn big accountancy firms and industries.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Londonpie72]

Interesting to read, studied Accounting and finance at university still trying to decide which path to go with.

CIMA Management accountants more internal more towards industry.
ACA More prestigious more restrictive in terms of international recognition.
ACCA more known internationally

[Kemik]

Less about the qualification, more about the work experience.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Londonpie72)
Interesting to read, studied Accounting and finance at university still trying to decide which path to go with.

CIMA Management accountants more internal more towards industry.
ACA More prestigious more restrictive in terms of international recognition.
ACCA more known internationally

I would say ACA is more internationally known because they are adopted by the Big 4 and you can't get more international than that! I would also like to add that ACA would most likely provide much more security than CIMA. Chartered accountants are always needed but management accountants are pretty optional.

[SunderX]

I'm doing a CIMA graduate scheme in one of the Big 4. I don't intend on ever being an accountant, but part of what attracted me to the scheme was the opportunity to get a qualification that could be marginally useful in business in later life, especially if I were to begin a startup. The CIMA appears to fit that bill, and allows the company to show that we're qualified (in something at least) when we consult for clients.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by SunderX)
I'm doing a CIMA graduate scheme in one of the Big 4. I don't intend on ever being an accountant, but part of what attracted me to the scheme was the opportunity to get a qualification that could be marginally useful in business in later life, especially if I were to begin a startup. The CIMA appears to fit that bill, and allows the company to show that we're qualified (in something at least) when we consult for clients.

Are you doing consultancy?

[SunderX]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Are you doing consultancy?

Will be very shortly (September). Management Consultancy.