The Pass Rate Figures
CFA Institute publishes pass rates for each exam window, typically several weeks after results are released. The figures for recent years tell a consistent story: Level I is hard, Level II is harder on average, and neither is a formality.
Recent Level I pass rates have ranged from approximately 37% to 49% depending on the window and year. The May 2023 window produced a 40% pass rate. The August 2023 window came in at 46%. Level II has historically ranged between 40% and 55%, though it varies similarly by window.
These percentages apply to candidates who sat the exam, not everyone who registered. CFA Institute does not publish the no-show rate publicly, but industry estimates suggest 15–25% of registered candidates do not sit in any given window. The practical pass rate among people who actually prepare and sit is somewhat higher than the headline figure suggests, though not dramatically so.
Why Pass Rates Vary Between Windows
The variation between windows is partly explained by candidate selection effects. The February window tends to draw candidates who began studying in September or October, giving them five to six months of preparation time. The August window includes a higher proportion of retakers and candidates who had less structured preparation periods. The November window is popular among candidates in certain international markets who study intensively through the summer.
The curriculum itself does not change meaningfully from window to window within a given year, so the variation in pass rates primarily reflects differences in the candidate population rather than differences in exam difficulty, though CFA Institute uses a minimum passing score process that theoretically adjusts for item difficulty.
For practical purposes, the window with the most preparation time available to you is generally the right choice.
Level I vs Level II Pass Rates: The Progression Gap
The cumulative pass rate across both levels is more revealing than either figure in isolation. Of candidates who pass Level I and sit Level II within a reasonable timeframe, roughly 45–50% pass Level II on their first attempt. The proportion who complete all three levels and earn the charter is estimated at around 20% of everyone who begins the process.
Level II's lower pass rate is partly explained by the step change in depth and format. Level II uses item sets (vignettes with six questions each) rather than standalone questions. The vignette format requires reading and synthesising a 300–500 word scenario before answering, which adds time pressure and requires a different type of preparation than Level I standalone questions.
Candidates who pass Level I with a comfortable margin and strong quantitative foundations tend to transition to Level II more smoothly. Candidates who passed Level I narrowly, particularly with weak FSA or Fixed Income performance, often find Level II's increased depth in those areas creates significant challenges.
What Pass Rates Tell You (and What They Don't)
The headline pass rate of 40–46% does not mean the exam is a lottery or that luck determines outcomes. It means the exam is selective, the preparation required is substantial, and a large proportion of candidates underestimate what is required.
Post-exam surveys (collected informally through forums like r/CFA and AnalystForum) consistently find that candidates who fail most commonly report studying 150–200 hours, having inadequate time for full-length practice, or running out of time for the high-weight topics. These are preparation failures, not difficulty failures. The curriculum is demanding but learnable.
The pass rate is also an average across a heterogeneous candidate population that includes first-time candidates with strong finance backgrounds, career changers with minimal quantitative training, and retakers who may or may not have addressed what caused their previous failure. Your outcome is a function of your preparation, not a draw from the 40–46% pool.
Using the Data to Calibrate Your Study Plan
The pass rate data is most useful when you treat it as evidence about what adequate preparation looks like, rather than as a discouragement or a benchmark to beat.
If roughly 55% of sitting candidates fail, and most failing candidates studied under 250 hours, the implication is that 300+ hours of structured preparation places you in a minority of candidates by preparation volume. Most candidates who do 300 well-structured hours pass.
"Well-structured" is the key qualifier. 300 hours of passive reading is not equivalent to 300 hours that combines reading with regular practice questions, systematic wrong-answer review, and timed full-length sessions. The candidates who pass consistently report that their preparation was heavily weighted toward active practice, not passive study.
Ethics practice questions and FSA practice questions are available to start without a subscription. Reviewing those questions early in your preparation gives you an accurate benchmark of where your current knowledge stands relative to exam-level expectations. That is more useful than inferring from the pass rate how hard the exam is.
The Minimum Passing Score
CFA Institute uses a criterion-referenced minimum passing score (MPS) process. A panel of charterholders reviews the exam and sets the MPS based on what a minimally competent candidate should be able to answer correctly. The MPS is not publicly disclosed, but it has historically been estimated by candidates and prep providers at around 60–70% of questions answered correctly, adjusting for topic weight.
This means the exam does not grade on a curve relative to other candidates. If the entire candidate pool performed poorly, more candidates could pass (if they met the absolute standard) than the historical pass rate suggests. Conversely, if most candidates performed well, the pass rate would be correspondingly higher.
The practical implication: there is no benefit to being better than the average candidate if you have not reached the minimum standard. And there is no penalty for being a top scorer. Study to meet the absolute standard, not to beat your peers.
Retaker Rates and Second-Attempt Strategy
A significant proportion of exam sitters in any given window are retakers from a previous window. CFA Institute does not publish retaker pass rates separately, but survey data from community forums suggests retakers who make substantive changes to their preparation approach pass at higher rates than those who simply repeat the same study method.
The most common failure after a first-attempt failure is repeating the same preparation approach and expecting a different outcome. If you failed because you studied too few hours, the fix is more hours. If you failed because your practice was heavily biased toward your stronger topics, the fix is redirecting time to the high-weight areas where your accuracy was weak. If you failed because you never took timed full-length sessions, the fix is building those into your retake preparation.
The pass rate data, examined honestly, tells you that passing the CFA exam is achievable for most candidates who prepare adequately. The candidates who fail multiple times are typically those who underestimate the required preparation or repeat ineffective study habits rather than adapting them.
A Note on Third-Party Pass Rate Claims
Some review course providers publish higher-than-average pass rates for their students. These figures should be read carefully. Candidates who purchase structured review courses are a selected population (they are typically more motivated and have invested financially, which correlates with higher study hours) and the figures may not be independently verified.
The CFA Institute published pass rate is the authoritative benchmark. Use it as a planning input, not as a signal about the intrinsic difficulty of the material.