Understanding FRM Pass Rates in 2026

Historically, official pass rates reported by the Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) reveal a distinct performance split between both levels of the Financial Risk Manager designation. For candidates tracking frm pass rates 2026, Part I consistently registers a pass rate hovering between 45% and 50%, whereas Part II achieves a noticeably higher pass rate typically ranging between 55% and 60%. Across the May, August, and November test windows, these figures reflect both the rigorous nature of GARP's quantitative standards and the progressive filtering of the candidate pool.

For finance and risk professionals based in Singapore—whether operating out of the Marina Bay Financial Centre, Raffles Place, or local institutions like DBS, OCBC, and UOB—deciphering these numbers is critical for planning study leave and setting revision targets. Because GARP does not publish an absolute raw pass score, passing depends on beating a relative benchmark set against the top performers within each specific testing window. Understanding how these percentiles function across the 2026 calendar helps you structure an effective, metrics-driven revision plan.

The 10% Divergence: Part I vs Part II Historical Benchmarks

The gap between the Part I pass rate ( oughly 45%–50% ext{)}) and Part II pass rate ( oughly 55%–60% ext{)}) is frequently misunderstood as evidence that the second exam is objectively easier. In reality, Part II is broader and cognitively heavier, covering deep qualitative case studies, Basel regulations, and complex stress-testing frameworks. The higher pass rate is primarily driven by three structural factors:

1. The Filtered Candidate Cohort

Part I acts as an aggressive filter. Candidates who sit for Part I come from varied backgrounds—university undergraduates, lateral career switchers from technology or general operations, and project managers pursuing cross-disciplinary risk credentials. A significant portion enters underprepared for the quantitative rigor of subjects like Quantitative Analysis and Valuation and Risk Models. By contrast, the Part II candidate pool consists entirely of individuals who have already proven their quantitative competence by clearing Part I.

2. Self-Selection and Commitment Bias

Part I candidates face a four-year window to clear Part II before their Part I credit expires. Consequently, those registering for Part II show considerably higher study discipline, dedicating between 200 and 300 hours of focused revision. Drop-out rates and no-shows at Singapore Prometric test centres (such as those at International Plaza or Jurong East) are markedly lower for Part II sittings.

3. Syllabus Concentration and Subject Familiarity

Part I demands swift switching across four foundational areas: Foundations of Risk Management (20%), Quantitative Analysis (20%), Financial Markets and Products (30%), and Valuation and Risk Models (30%). Part II shifts from foundational calculation to systemic application across Market Risk (20%), Credit Risk (20%), Operational Risk and Resiliency (20%), Liquidity and Treasury Risk (15%), Risk Management and Investment Management (15%), and Current Issues in Financial Markets (10%). Candidates working in Singapore's banking sector often find that Part II overlaps directly with daily MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) regulatory and capital adequacy workflows.

Demystifying the GARP Scoring System and Quartile Mechanics

One of the primary frustrations for exam candidates is the absence of a numerical raw score on the GARP candidate portal. When results are published approximately six weeks following the close of an exam window, candidates receive only a performance breakdown by quartiles.

How the Hidden Minimum Passing Score Works

GARP sets a Minimum Passing Score (MPS) for each sitting using a psychometric calibration process derived from the modified Angoff method. Rather than imposing a fixed numerical cut-off (such as 70%), the passing threshold is anchored to a predetermined percentage of the average raw score achieved by the top 5% of test-takers in that specific testing window. The actual pass mark typically equates to getting roughly 65% to 70% of the questions correct, depending on window-specific question difficulty.

Quartile Combinations: Pass vs. Fail

Each exam section is graded into quartiles representing your relative standing against all other candidates in that window:

  • Quartile 1 (Q1): Top 25% of candidates.
  • Quartile 2 (Q2): 26th to 50th percentile.
  • Quartile 3 (Q3): 51st to 75th percentile.
  • Quartile 4 (Q4): Bottom 25% of candidates.

Because GARP evaluates aggregate performance weighted by topic area, there is no single mandatory passing quartile combination. A candidate can pass Part I with a profile of ext{(1, 1, 2, 4)} ext{ if their high marks in Financial Markets and Products compensate for a weak showing in Valuation and Risk Models. Conversely, receiving multiple 3rd or 4th quartiles—such as } ext{(2, 3, 3, 4)} ext{ or } ext{(3, 3, 3, 3)} ext{—almost universally results in an unsuccessful result.

To explore how scoring mechanics operate across other international credentials, check our wider library of guides on professional exam preparation.

Sitting Window Variance: May vs August vs November

In 2026, GARP continues its computer-based testing (CBT) structure across three primary testing windows. While overall pass rate averages remain steady year-over-year, local cohort conditions create noticeable variations in study continuity.

The May Window

The May sitting attracts a high volume of candidates attempting to clear exams before mid-year corporate performance reviews. In Singapore, this window follows closely on the heels of first-quarter earnings cycles and financial reporting. Candidates choosing May typically benefit from uninterrupted preparation throughout February and March, leading to disciplined cohort performance.

The August Window

Introduced to provide greater calendar flexibility, the August window often has lower registration volumes than May or November. Candidates sitting in August typically include those executing rapid retakes from the May sitting or corporate professionals who deliberately avoid mid-year audit periods. However, candidates must balance preparation with mid-year work commitments and summer holiday disruptions.

The November Window

November is historically the most crowded sitting across Singapore test centres. Many candidates aim to complete their credential before the calendar year closes. The main risk during this window is corporate fatigue: banking candidates frequently grapple with Q4 operational deadlines, year-end stress testing submissions, and internal audits, which can cut into final mock exam preparation.

Diagnostic Benchmarking: What Mock Scores Guarantee a Pass?

Because you cannot rely on an absolute GARP threshold, your mock exam metrics serve as the single most reliable predictor of success. Based on performance distributions from past test cohorts, you can evaluate your readiness using these target bands:

  • Below 60% on timed full-length mocks: High risk of landing in Q3 or Q4. Indicates conceptual gaps in core calculation topics (e.g., Black-Scholes-Merton adaptations, copula functions, or value-at-risk scaling).
  • 62% to 68% consistently: The borderline threshold. At this level, exam-day variance, unfamiliar phrasing, and calculation speed determine whether you clear the MPS.
  • 72% and above under strict exam conditions: Strong probability of securing Q1 and Q2 finishes across the major weighted sections.

Traditional static question banks often obscure where points are being lost because they aggregate scores into a generic percentage. Leveraging an AI-powered adaptive study platform allows you to evaluate your mock results through domain-specific weighting. By pinpointing whether your score deficit stems from quantitative calculation speed or qualitative regulatory scenario traps, you can spend your remaining revision hours where the marginal point gain is highest.

Strategic 2026 Preparation Blueprint for Singapore Candidates

Balancing FRM preparation alongside demanding commercial hours requires an analytical approach to time management. For professionals working in Singapore's financial district, execute this sequence to place your odds well above the historical 45%–55% averages:

1. Front-Load the Heavy Quantitative Weightings

In Part I, Financial Markets and Products combined with Valuation and Risk Models account for 60% of the entire exam. Begin with these two areas before moving to Foundations of Risk Management. Mastering option strategies, interest rate hedging, swap valuation, and Greeks ensures you capture the largest available pool of raw points.

2. Shift from Theory to Timed Vignette Practice

The Part I exam demands solving 100 questions within 4 hours (averaging 2.4 minutes per question). Part II features 80 questions across 4 hours (3 minutes per question). Many candidates with strong technical backgrounds fail simply due to pacing deficits. By logging regular sessions inside an adaptive diagnostic mock platform, you build the reflex speed needed to parse dense situational prompts without recalculating formulas from scratch.

3. Target Operational and Liquidity Frameworks Early (Part II)

Part II candidates often over-focus on Market and Credit Risk while leaving Operational Risk and Liquidity Risk to the final weeks. Given MAS's regulatory focus on operational resilience, technology risk management guidelines, and liquidity coverage ratios, these areas are not only conceptually important but make up 35% of the total Part II paper. Consistent Q1 or Q2 performance in these domains easily secures a passing total.

4. Conduct Timed Diagnostic Audits Two Weeks Prior

During the final fortnight, discontinue broad textbook reading. Instead, run timed 50-question diagnostic sets focused entirely on your bottom two historical performance areas. Correcting misread question stems and formula syntax at this stage directly preserves the 5 to 7 raw marks that separate an unsuccessful Q3 result from a clear Q2 pass mark.