Imagine a CFO is down to two FP&A finalists who look nearly identical on paper. So the CFO gives each a set of financials and one prompt: tell us what's happening in this business.

The first candidate brings an impressive model but stumbles when asked why margins dipped. The second brings a simpler one, explains the margin story in two sentences, and reworks the numbers on the spot when given a new fact. After weeks of interviews, the decision takes ten minutes.

That is the value of a case study: it can show how someone actually works, which a résumé and interview can't. We often recommend them for finance roles, as we do for sales interviews. In finance, they can measure two distinct things: hard skills and analysis/communication.

A résumé tells you where a finance candidate has worked. An interview tells you how well they talk about it. Neither shows you how they actually work with numbers, or how clearly they can explain what the numbers mean.

Hard skills: the modeling exercise

For heavy analysis and accounting roles, technical competence is the price of entry. A modeling exercise tests it directly: give the candidate a realistic dataset and ask them to build something from it.

Good modeling exercises share a few traits:

• Realistic, simplified data. Use a scrubbed or fictional version of the kind of data they would see in the role, not a textbook problem

• A clear deliverable. A three-year forecast, a variance analysis, or a unit economics model, with the output defined up front

• Room for judgment. Leave some assumptions open. How a candidate fills gaps tells you as much as whether the formulas work

• A time box. A few hours at most. Longer exercises start to feel like free work, and strong candidates with options may simply decline

What you are looking for is not just a correct answer. Look at how the model is structured, whether assumptions are clearly labeled, and whether someone else could pick it up and use it.

Analysis and communication: the summary and live Q&A

As finance professionals become more senior, the job shifts from producing numbers to interpreting them. A strong FP&A director or controller has to tell company leadership what changed, why it matters, and what to do about it, often under time pressure and with incomplete information.

This matters even more at PE-backed companies. Finance teams are lean, and a new hire may be preparing sponsor reporting, a lender package, or part of the board deck within weeks of starting. There is little time for someone to grow into the communication side of the role.

We find case studies that ask the candidate to review a set of financials or a business situation, prepare a short summary of their conclusions, and present it to the hiring team the most helpful. Then spend most of the time on live Q&A, where the real signal is. Push on their assumptions. 

Ask what they would need to see to change their mind. Introduce a new fact and see how they adjust. Strong candidates stay calm, separate what they know from what they are guessing, and explain things in plain language to non-finance listeners.

Why AI is pushing evaluation toward live exercises

AI tools can now build a reasonable financial model or draft a polished variance commentary in minutes. That changes what a take-home exercise can tell you. A clean deliverable no longer proves the candidate could have produced it alone. This doesn't mean banning AI. Finance teams increasingly use these tools, and knowing how to use them well is a real skill. But it does mean the evaluation has to shift from evaluating the output to the person's understanding of it.

Live exercises do that. In real time, a candidate has to explain why the model is built the way it is, defend the assumptions, and adjust when the facts change. That is hard to fake, and it is much closer to how the job actually works. One format we like combines both: a short take-home modeling exercise, followed by a live session where the candidate walks through the model and makes changes on the spot. The take-home shows the work; the live session shows whether they own it.

Whatever your stance, tell candidates the AI rules up front. Say whether AI tools are allowed on the take-home and, if so, ask them to note how they used them. Otherwise you end up penalizing the candidates who followed rules you never stated, while rewarding those who quietly used every tool available.

Not everyone does their best work live

Live exercises have a real downside. Some excellent finance professionals do their best thinking alone, at their own pace. Put them on the spot in front of a panel and they may underperform, not because they lack the skills, but because the format doesn't suit them. This is especially true of more junior roles that may not require this skill set yet.

If you only test live, you risk filtering out exactly the careful, thorough people many finance teams need. A few adjustments help:

• Tell candidates the format in advance, so the live portion isn't a surprise.

• Let them prepare the core work privately and keep the live part to discussion, not new work under a clock.

• Match the format to the role. A controller who rarely presents to the board may not need the same live intensity as an FP&A lead who briefs the CEO weekly.

• Score the substance, not the polish. A nervous start matters less than whether the reasoning holds up.

The goal is to see how the candidate really thinks. Adjust the format so it reveals that, rather than testing comfort with being watched.

Where the case fits into the Process

We recommend case studies near the end, with the three or four candidates, after earlier rounds have confirmed fit. Many strong mid-level and senior finance candidates are employed and not actively looking. Asking them for several hours of work before they are invested in the opportunity is one of the most common ways we see good candidates drop out. It also takes internal time to evaluate, which makes it an “expensive” way to evaluate a candidate.

Crafting the Case Study

A case study is also a preview of the job. An exercise built on a real problem the company faces (scrubbed of anything sensitive) shows candidates what they would actually work on, and the best ones find that compelling. A generic or overly long exercise sends the opposite message.

Sample prompts by role

• Financial Analyst: Here are three years of P&L data. Build a simple forecast for next year and walk us through your assumptions (tests modelling, assumption setting)

• Senior Accountant: Here is a reconciliation with errors in it. Find them and explain how you would prevent them (accuracy, process thinking)

• FP&A Manager: Revenue is 8% below plan at mid-year. How would you diagnose it, and what would you present to the CFO? (analysis, communication)

• Controller: We close in 12 days and want to get to 6. Where would you start? (judgment, operational priorities)

For CFO and VP-level candidates, a test usually isn't the right tool. Instead, use a structured discussion: ask them to walk through a real situation they handled, such as a refinancing, a system implementation, or a turnaround, and probe their decisions the same way you would in a live Q&A. You get the same insight into judgment and communication without asking a senior executive to sit an exam.

Whatever you choose, decide in advance what a strong answer looks like and score every candidate against the same criteria. That keeps the comparison fair and makes the debrief faster.

Best practice is to close the loop. Thank candidates for their time and give brief feedback, especially to those who don't move forward. It costs little, protects your reputation in a small market, and, as we've written about in candidate experience, it keeps your eventual offer in a stronger position.

If you are hiring for a finance role and want help designing a case study that fits the position and your team, we're happy to help.