Understanding FRM Pass Rates 2026: Benchmarks Across Testing Windows

Projected FRM pass rates 2026 continue to reflect the rigorous standard maintained by the Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP). Historically and heading into the 2026 testing cycle, Part I pass rates reliably hover between 45% and 50%, whereas Part II pass rates sit higher at approximately 55% to 60%. Whether you are an experienced risk analyst or a certified project manager (such as a PMP or PMI-RMP credential holder) expanding your quantitative toolkit into enterprise and credit risk, understanding these historical baselines is essential for calibrating your study strategy.

These figures often lead candidates to assume that Part II is easier than Part I. In reality, the higher pass rate in Part II stems from self-selection: only candidates who have already demonstrated mastery of quantitative methods, financial markets, and foundational valuation models in Part I are eligible to sit for Part II. Across the primary May, August, and November 2026 computer-based testing (CBT) windows, passing rates fluctuate marginally based on cohort strength and relative performance curves rather than fixed raw point thresholds.

GARP administers the Financial Risk Manager exams globally across dedicated CBT windows. Over the past decade, candidate performance across both levels has demonstrated clear stability despite updates to curriculum readings in operational resilience, machine learning in finance, and climate risk. Below is a summary of historical pass rate trends heading into the 2026 test windows:

Part I Pass Rate Trends (Target: 45%–50%)

Part I tests four core foundational domains: Foundations of Risk Management (20%), Quantitative Analysis (20%), Financial Markets and Products (30%), and Valuation and Risk Models (30%). Because Part I serves as the primary barrier to entry, it experiences the highest attrition. In recent May, August, and November windows, pass rates have consistently stayed between 44% and 49%. First-time test-takers who underestimate the quantitative depth—particularly calculus-informed statistics, probability distributions, and multi-factor regression models—account for the bulk of non-passing scores.

Part II Pass Rate Trends (Target: 55%–60%)

Part II shifts focus toward application and stress-testing across Market Risk (20%), Credit Risk (20%), Operational Risk and Resilience (20%), Liquidity and Treasury Risk (15%), Investment Management (15%), and Current Issues in Financial Markets (10%). The passing rate consistently ranges between 54% and 62%. Because every Part II candidate has already cleared the grueling quantitative hurdles of Part I, the baseline competency of the test pool is significantly higher, explaining the approximately 10-percentage-point jump in overall pass rates.

Decoding GARP Scoring: Why Raw Scores Stay Hidden

Unlike standard professional certifications that provide a straightforward numerical percentage or scaled point total, GARP never discloses candidate raw scores or an explicit Minimum Passing Score (MPS). When exam results drop approximately six to eight weeks after a testing window closes, candidates receive an official score notification featuring a quartile breakdown for each syllabus topic area.

Performance is grouped into four distinct tiers relative to the global peer group:

• Quartile 1 (Q1): Top 25% of candidates in that specific domain.
• Quartile 2 (Q2): 50th to 74th percentile performance.
• Quartile 3 (Q3): 25th to 49th percentile performance.
• Quartile 4 (Q4): Bottom 25% of candidate scores.

Because GARP uses a modified Angoff standard-setting method coupled with relative grading curves, passing requires achieving a composite score that exceeds the threshold established by the exam committee for that sitting. Consequently, there is no single winning quartile combination. While an all-first-quartile result ( ext{Q1, Q1, Q1, Q1} ext{ or }1-1-1-1) is a guaranteed pass, candidates frequently pass Part I with mixed profiles such as 1-2-2-3 or 1-1-2-4, provided their high-weight subjects—such as Financial Markets and Valuation Models—compensate for deficiencies in lighter-weighted areas.

Sitting Variance: May vs. August vs. November Windows

A frequent question among professionals planning their exam timeline is whether sitting in May, August, or November offers a statistical advantage. Historical data indicates that the pass rate variations between sittings are minor, usually within a narrow range of 1% to 3%.

However, cohort composition does shift across windows:

• May Window: Traditionally attracts a large contingent of university graduate students, full-time financial analysts, and corporate risk rotational program participants. Study discipline is often elevated due to formal program schedules.
• August Window: Popular among candidates executing rapid retakes or working professionals balancing summer operational cycles. Cohorts tend to be smaller, but candidate dedication is high.
• November Window: Features the largest absolute volume of corporate professionals, project managers, and financial engineers attempting to finish their certification requirements before year-end budgeting and performance reviews.

Rather than attempting to game the window with the mathematically highest pass rate, candidates achieve better outcomes by aligning their test date with a realistic 250-to-300-hour structured preparation roadmap.

Bridging Risk Methodologies: From Project Governance to Enterprise Quant

For candidates transitioning from general project governance frameworks—such as PMI's PMBOK or portfolio risk standards—the FRM demands a major cognitive pivot. Traditional project risk management prioritizes qualitative risk registers, impact-probability matrices, and stakeholder communication channels. In contrast, the FRM requires rigorous quantitative modeling: computing Value at Risk (VaR), calculating Expected Shortfall (ES), constructing copulas, managing counterparty credit risk via Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA), and interpreting extreme value theory.

If you already hold credentials like the PMP or PMI-RMP, your existing strengths lie in governance, scenario planning, and structured execution. Your primary vulnerability will likely be mathematical computation under strict Prometric CBT time constraints—solving 100 questions in 4 hours for Part I (2.4 minutes per question) and 80 questions in 4 hours for Part II (3 minutes per question). Reviewing cross-disciplinary prep guides on professional exam preparation can provide practical frameworks for managing these intensive technical curricula.

Calibrating Your Mock Exam Benchmarks for 2026

Because GARP's actual passing mark is not disclosed, candidates must rely on mock diagnostic benchmarks to evaluate exam readiness. Across historical candidate test cohorts, achieving a steady 70% to 75% raw score on fresh, unreviewed mock exams serves as the primary safe harbor.

To build genuine readiness, structure your practice metrics around these principles:

• Raw Mock Thresholds: If your mock scores sit consistently below 60%, your probability of falling into Q3 or Q4 across multiple domains is high, placing your result in jeopardy. Scores between 65% and 70% place you on the border where cohort grading dynamics determine the outcome. Scores consistently exceeding 72% indicate strong alignment with a passing composite.
• Time Management Discipline: Part I requires rapid computational execution. Candidates must be able to calculate duration, convexity, bond pricing, and forward rates on their approved financial calculator (HP 12C, TI BA II Plus) without hesitation.
• Formula Fluency: Formulas must be recalled automatically without relying on reference sheets, especially for Black-Scholes-Merton option Greeks, delta-normal VaR adjustments, and GARCH volatility updating equations.

Leveraging AI-Powered Diagnostics with Thinka

Standard mock exams tell you your total score, but they rarely expose the underlying cognitive gaps that cause candidates to miss questions under pressure. Using the AI-powered practice platform from Thinka allows you to stress-test your knowledge across the entire GARP curriculum with adaptive precision.

Thinka's AI platform continuously monitors your practice responses across every sub-topic, mapping your accuracy, question response time, and conceptual stability against weighted domain requirements. Rather than wasting precious revision hours reviewing sections where you already perform at a Q1 level, personalized study support directs your focus toward high-yield, vulnerable calculations—whether that means fine-tuning your understanding of credit default swap spreads or mastering stress testing methodologies. This targeted diagnostic approach turns borderline mock scores into solid, reproducible test-day performance.

Actionable Checklist for the 2026 Windows

As you map out your path toward clearing Part I or Part II in 2026, keep these final strategic milestones in view:

1. Target Domain Weights: Allocate study hours proportionally. Part I candidates should dedicate at least 60% of their study timeline to Financial Markets & Products and Valuation Models, which together represent 60% of the exam.
2. Simulate Real Exam Conditions: Complete at least three full-length, 4-hour mock exams without pauses or notes to build computational stamina.
3. Target Weak Quartiles Early: Isolate domain areas where your diagnostic score falls below 65% and utilize active recall question drills rather than passive re-reading.
4. Protect Your Timeline: Build in a 4-week final review phase exclusively for timed question sets, mock analysis, and formula memorization.

By grounding your preparation in verifiable performance data and focusing on high-weight quantitative domains, you can overcome the historical 45% to 50% Part I bottleneck and secure your FRM credential in 2026.