Understanding FRM Pass Rates 2026 Across Examination Windows

For candidates tracking frm pass rates 2026, the Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) continues to exhibit distinct pass trends across both levels of the Financial Risk Manager qualification. Historically and into the 2026 testing calendar, FRM Part I pass rates hover tightly between 45% and 50%, whereas FRM Part II pass rates sit higher, typically averaging between 55% and 60%. While these figures suggest Part II might be less punishing, the reality reflects a heavily pre-filtered cohort: every Part II candidate has already conquered the steep quantitative hurdles of the first examination.

Understanding these historical percentages is essential whether you are planning to sit in the May, August, or November 2026 exam windows. Unlike standardized qualifications with fixed numeric cutoffs, GARP does not publish raw passing scores. Candidates receive only domain quartile distributions, making post-exam performance analysis notoriously difficult. In this benchmark analysis, we unpack the structural variances between windows, decode GARP’s curve mechanics, and outline the mock exam percentiles you need to secure a pass.

Part I vs Part II: Historical Pass Rate Matrix

To contextualise the expected performance bands for the 2026 test cycles, it helps to review the long-term empirical data across recent examination cycles. While minor fluctuations occur between sittings, GARP maintains consistent standards to ensure qualification prestige across global financial centres, including London’s banking and asset management sectors.

The structural divergence between the two levels can be broken down across the key operational windows:

1. FRM Part I Benchmarks (45%–50% Typical Range)

Part I serves as the primary barrier to entry. The 100-question, 4-hour multiple-choice sitting tests foundational quantitative analysis, financial markets and products, valuation and risk models, and fundamental risk management concepts. Because sitting Part I requires no prerequisite, the candidate pool includes university graduates, career changers, and experienced practitioners alike. The wide variance in quantitative fluency suppresses the overall pass percentage into the mid-to-high 40s.

2. FRM Part II Benchmarks (55%–60% Typical Range)

Part II comprises 80 complex, scenario-based multiple-choice questions administered over 4 hours. It covers market risk, credit risk, operational risk, liquidity risk, risk management and investment management, and current financial market issues. Although the material is conceptually denser and heavily qualitative, the pass rate rises into the high 50s. This jump is driven almost entirely by candidate survivorship: candidates lacking quantitative stamina or rigorous study routines were weeded out in Part I.

Window-by-Window Variance: May, August, and November

Candidates often ask whether sitting in a specific window provides a statistical advantage. GARP conducts computer-based testing (CBT) across three principal windows: May, August, and November.

While historical data indicates slight variations between sittings—often within a 2% to 4% margin—there is no systematic institutional curve that makes one window inherently easier. Instead, performance differences stem from candidate demographics:

The May Window: Historically attracts candidates who began their preparation over the winter. Revision periods tend to be uninterrupted, leading to well-prepared sittings, particularly among City of London analysts balancing early-year reporting cycles.

The August Window: A popular sitting for Part I candidates seeking a summer test, or those executing a rapid retake following an unsuccessful May sitting. The shorter preparation runway can lead to slightly tighter quartile margins.

The November Window: Consistently the highest-volume sitting of the year. It captures both scheduled second-half test-takers and candidates completing their Part II sitting before year-end appraisal deadlines.

Rather than attempting to game exam window difficulty, candidates achieve better outcomes by aligning their sitting dates with their professional workload and disciplined study timelines. For deeper comparisons across industry credentials, you can explore our guides on professional exam preparation.

Demystifying GARP Scoring: Quartiles and the Hidden Passing Mark

One of the most frustrating aspects of the FRM programme is the lack of a transparent raw mark on your score breakdown. GARP provides neither a percentage mark nor the global passing threshold. Instead, candidates who open their results portal see four numeric quartiles representing their relative performance across the syllabus domains:

\[Q \in \{1, 2, 3, 4\}\]

Here, a quartile score of 1 indicates performance in the top 25% of candidates for that specific section, while a 4 indicates performance in the bottom 25%. A candidate’s result report might look like \((1, 2, 1, 2)\) or \((2, 3, 1, 2)\).

How the Passing Score is Determined

GARP’s hidden scoring model relies on a modified Angoff standard-setting methodology combined with a relative curve. The exam committee determines a cut score based on the performance of the top 5% of test-takers in that specific administration window:

\[\text{Passing Threshold} \approx X\% \times \text{Average Score of Top 5\%}\]

Historically, psychometric analyses suggest that scoring between 65% and 70% in raw correct answers is almost universally sufficient to pass Part I (out of 100 items) and Part II (out of 80 items). However, because GARP weights domains differently, individual section quartiles carry varying mathematical influence.

Safe vs At-Risk Quartile Permutations

While GARP does not publish an official algorithm, thousands of candidate score combinations reveal consistent thresholds:

Definite Pass: Combinations such as \((1, 1, 1, 1)\), \((1, 1, 2, 2)\), or \((1, 2, 2, 2)\) represent comfortable passing margins across both parts.

Borderline Passing: Profiles with an isolated deficiency offset by high-weight strengths, such as \((1, 1, 1, 4)\) or \((2, 2, 2, 3)\), frequently achieve a pass provided the 4 is in a lower-weighted domain like Foundations of Risk Management (20%) rather than Valuation and Risk Models (30%).

Probable Fail: Combinations carrying multiple bottom quartiles, such as \((3, 3, 3, 4)\), \((2, 3, 4, 4)\), or \((1, 4, 4, 3)\), fail in nearly all sittings due to cumulative deficits against the top percentile benchmark.

Mock Exam Benchmarking: What Score Guarantees a Pass?

Because the real exam uses relative scoring, your revision target on full-length mock examinations must build in a margin of safety. Practising under realistic 4-hour timed constraints is the only reliable predictor of success on test day.

Part I Mock Targets

Aim for a consistent 72% to 75% across reputable full-length mocks. If you are scoring in the 58% to 64% range two weeks before your window, your theoretical pass probability is roughly 50/50. You must remediate high-yield areas such as options valuation, fixed-income risk measures (duration and convexity), and Value at Risk (VaR) formulas.

Part II Mock Targets

Aim for a consistent 68% to 72%. Part II questions are wordier, with subtle edge-case exceptions embedded in credit risk mitigants and operational risk frameworks (such as Basel committee capital accords). A 70% mock benchmark in Part II represents a robust buffer against window variance.

Transforming Mock Diagnostics into a 2026 Pass Strategy

Candidates who fail the FRM exam often commit the error of passive reading during their final month. Reviewing 1,000 pages of handbook text without active diagnostic feedback generates an illusion of competence that unravels under Prometric testing conditions.

To guarantee your quartile profile remains comfortably above the cut line:

1. Run Formula Drills Under Timed Fatigue: In Part I, you have an average of 2.4 minutes per question. Calculate modified duration, Greek sensitivities, and binomial tree nodes without looking up reference formulas.

2. Target the High-Weight Topics: In Part I, Financial Markets and Products combined with Valuation and Risk Models represent 60% of the entire exam. Securing a 1st quartile in these two subjects virtually guarantees a pass even with mediocre performance elsewhere.

3. Leverage AI Diagnostic Platforms: Rather than taking mocks and merely reading static answer explanations, smart candidates use adaptive AI study platforms to stress-test their weak areas. By simulating adaptive question sets tailored to your personal historical error patterns, you isolate topic blind spots before they surface on test day.

If you are mapping your roadmap for the upcoming sitting, begin testing your baseline immediately. You can start practising on Thinka's test platform to benchmark your domain scores against expected exam thresholds and build the confidence required to clear your FRM sitting on the first attempt.