AlixPartners Case Interview Examples: Cash, Cost and Restructuring Cases Solved (2026)

AlixPartners is a turnaround, restructuring and performance improvement firm, and its public pages say so plainly. Its turnaround and restructuring page lists liquidity management with a 13-week cash flow model, restructuring advisory, interim management and creditor advisory (checked November 5, 2026). What it does not publish is a sample case: the careers pages we checked describe a case interview "depending on the role" and nothing more. So the practice material that exists is third-party, written to match what candidates report.

That is the gap this page fills. It gives you eight worked AlixPartners-style cases, each with the prompt, the clarifying questions, a structure, the math step by step and a recommendation. They sit in the places candidate reports say the firm asks about: cash and covenants, cost takeout, procurement, operations, store and plant decisions, and the restructuring choice itself. The cases are original practice, not AlixPartners material and not actual interview questions. For how the process works, the assessment test and the behavioral rounds, use the AlixPartners case interview guide, which owns that ground.

AlixPartners practice cases at a glance

How an AlixPartners case works: it is a fix-the-business problem, not a market-entry puzzle. Cash, cost, working capital and operations come up far more than brand or growth strategy. What the firm says and what candidates report:

• The firm's own words. AlixPartners lists a case interview and/or a technical or skills assessment as step four of five, "depending on the role" (How we hire). For Business Analysts it says the case study shows how you solve problems and work with clients (Business Analyst programme). It publishes no case format, length or sample case.
• Candidate reports. CaseBasix describes cases as candidate-led, in retail, financial services, healthcare, automotive and manufacturing, with a case of about 45 minutes with a consultant and two or three 45-minute cases with senior directors in the last round, mental math only (CaseBasix). Coaches on PrepLounge in March 2025 call the cases more operational, quantitative and financial than MBB, with a business scenario or presentation case in some regions (PrepLounge). These are secondhand, so confirm with your recruiter.

Start free now: MetroFresh Distribution Center Operations Turnaround is a McKinsey-style operations turnaround: a regional grocery distributor's on-time-in-full service fell from 96% to 87% while cost per order rose, and the COO wants service back above 95% and margin recovered within two quarters. It has 8 questions, 4 with math, 4 exhibits, and a median of 23 minutes across 17 completed voice runs. An AI interviewer runs it out loud, shows each exhibit when you reach it and scores the debrief. Your first full case is free when you create an account.

Case (style, industry)	Quant difficulty	Qualitative difficulty	The math you run	Median time
MetroFresh Distribution Center Operations Turnaround (McKinsey, grocery distribution). 8 (4 with math), 4 exhibits.grocery distributionQuant difficulty easyQualitative difficulty hard23 min· 17 voice runsTry free	easy	hard	Picking capacity gap, EBITDA initiatives	23 min17 voice runs23 min, 17 voice runs	Try free
AuroraWater Bottling Margin Recovery (McKinsey, packaged beverages). 8 (4 with math), 4 exhibits.packaged beveragesQuant difficulty mediumQualitative difficulty medium22 min· 19 voice runsTry free	medium	medium	Unit-cost savings, EBITDA bridge	22 min19 voice runs22 min, 19 voice runs	Try free
Titan Motorcycles Operations Optimization (Bain, motorcycle manufacturing). 8 (4 with math), 3 exhibits.motorcycle manufacturingBainQuant difficulty mediumQualitative difficulty medium21 min· 11 voice runsTry free	medium	medium	Cost per unit growth, outsourcing savings	21 min11 voice runs21 min, 11 voice runs	Try free
Bumpers R Us (Kearney, automotive parts). 7 (2 with math), 2 exhibits.automotive partsQuant difficulty mediumQualitative difficulty mediumFewer than 10 runsTry free	medium	medium	Lead-time sum, initiatives under a budget	Fewer than 10 runsFewer than 10 runs	Try free
StyleCraft European Profitability Reset (Bain, stationery). 9 (4 with math), 3 exhibits.stationeryBainQuant difficulty hardQualitative difficulty hardFewer than 10 runsTry free	hard	hard	Offshore cost savings, market sizing funnel	Fewer than 10 runsFewer than 10 runs	Try free

One is adapted from a consulting club casebook (Duke Fuqua); the rest were written for Road to Offer. The library has no case in AlixPartners' own style, so these are matched by case type to what AlixPartners asks. None is AlixPartners' own material. More are in the case library, 92 cases in all. Every debrief scores seven categories: structure (25% of the score), quantitative analysis (20%), business judgment (15%), and problem understanding, exhibit reading, communication and synthesis (10% each), with feedback on every question. Median times come from completed runs between June 25 and September 22, 2026, and count runs, not people.

What an AlixPartners case has to test, and where the eight cases fit

Candidate reports and the firm's own service pages point at the same cluster of problems. The table maps each one to the worked case that rehearses it, so you can pick by weakness instead of reading in order.

Every case uses the same loop, and your first move is always the same: say what is failing and by when, then build a structure that orders the buckets by urgency. Cash before cost, cost before strategy. Rehearse that opening move on its own before the full cases.

Does AlixPartners publish official case examples?

No, not on the careers pages we checked. The How we hire page lists five example steps and says the case interview and/or a technical or skills assessment depends on the role. The Business Analyst programme page says the case study gives a sense of working on an engagement and shows how you approach problems and interact with clients. Neither gives a length, format or topic. Treat any page that claims to show "the" AlixPartners case as a guess.

What the firm does publish is its work, and that is better raw material than a fake official case. Three public pages are worth ten minutes each, with the caveat that they are the firm's own marketing and the results are self-reported:

• A care operator case study: a roughly $1 billion private-equity-owned home and hospice provider with cash shortages and more staff than its operations needed. The firm reports a cost savings plan of over $50 million and a 5% cut to the cost base within eight weeks. Case 3 below uses the same type of problem with invented numbers.
• An automotive company case study: a carmaker that needed a worldwide 13-week cash projection to qualify for government loan funding. The firm reports a first consolidated forecast in about two weeks. Case 2 below practises the forecast itself.
• A working capital article arguing for faster billing, deliberate negotiation of supplier payment terms, lean inventory and incentives for cash collected. Case 1 uses all three levers.

Is an AlixPartners case study the same as an interview case?

No. An AlixPartners case study is a client story the firm publishes about work it has done, such as the pages in its client stories and case studies section, which describes them as showing how its teams help clients create, protect and restore value. That page ranked first when we searched "alixpartners case study" on November 5, 2026. An interview case is a problem an interviewer gives you to solve live, and the firm publishes no sample of one. The client stories are still useful reading, because they show the cash, cost and restructuring problems the interview cases are built around, but they are written as results, not as puzzles with a number to find.

How candidates report the format

The firm says little, so the format comes from candidates and coaches, and it is secondhand. Use it to set expectations, not as a rulebook.

The two sources are CaseBasix and a PrepLounge thread from March 2025, where coaches (who sell coaching) say the cases are more operational, quantitative and financial than MBB and may cover financial statements, liquidity or operational KPIs. A separate PrepLounge thread on sourcing cases from February 2025 has coaches expecting cost analysis, supplier negotiation and procurement, but none says they saw one, which is why case 4 exists and why it is labelled a guess.

How long is an AlixPartners case and what happens inside it?

Reported length: 25 to 35 minutes of case inside a 45 to 60 minute interview. That is the figure Case-Prep gives (page dated February 11, 2026, no author named), with the first round at one to two such interviews. CaseBasix describes 45-minute case interviews in the later rounds, so the two reports differ by about 10 to 20 minutes. Plan for the shorter case and be ready for the longer one, since neither is confirmed by AlixPartners.

Inside the case, Case-Prep says interviewers may hand over data exhibits at intervals, not all at once, and some offices add a written case or data-heavy exhibits. The exhibits it names are income statements, product-level margins, capacity utilization and cash flow statements. Case 7 on this page practises the product-margin type, and case 2 the cash flow type. CaseBasix describes the flow as: confirm the objective, build a structure, choose where to start, work the quantitative questions, answer qualitative ones and close with a recommendation. All of this is reported by prep sites that sell prep, so use it to set pace, not as a rulebook.

Case 1: a covenant breach 13 weeks out, an industrial distributor

Prompt. An industrial distributor has $400M of revenue. EBITDA fell from $50M to $38M. Net debt is $175M. The credit agreement caps net debt at 4.0 times EBITDA, tested at quarter end, 13 weeks from now. The lenders will consider a waiver only with a credible plan. What should the CFO do?

Clarifying questions. How does the covenant define EBITDA, and are add-backs allowed? Is it last twelve months? Is there a minimum cash requirement? What are cost of goods sold, inventory days, receivable days and payable days? Use these answers: cost of goods sold $320M, inventory 90 days of cost of goods sold, receivables 55 days of revenue, payables 40 days of cost of goods sold, and a 360-day year, which is how case math usually simplifies.

Structure. Size the gap first, then close it three ways, ordered by speed: cut net debt with cash released from working capital, raise EBITDA with cost and price, and negotiate with the lenders. Working capital is first because it can move inside 13 weeks and a cost program usually cannot.

The gap. Leverage today is $175M / $38M = 4.6 times. At 4.0 times, the maximum net debt on $38M of EBITDA is 4.0 x $38M = $152M. The company must cut net debt by $175M - $152M = $23M. The other route is EBITDA: $175M / 4.0 = $43.75M, so $5.75M more.

The levers. One day of cost of goods sold is $320M / 360 = $0.889M. One day of revenue is $400M / 360 = $1.111M.

The first two levers release $23.3M, so net debt falls to $175M - $23.3M = $151.7M, which is $151.7M / $38M = 3.99 times. That clears the covenant by about $0.3M of debt, effectively no cushion. All three levers bring net debt to $147.2M, or 3.87 times. Add a $4M cost action and EBITDA becomes $42M, so leverage is $147.2M / $42M = 3.50 times.

The traps. Selling 20 days of slow stock usually means markdowns, and markdowns hit last-twelve-month EBITDA, the denominator. Stretching payables works only if suppliers do not respond to a weaker credit by tightening terms. Receivables improve only if billing, not just chasing, is fixed.

Recommendation. Start all three working capital levers this week and build the 13-week cash plan that proves them. In week two, take the plan to the lenders and ask for a covenant reset as insurance, rather than relying on the cash release landing exactly on the line. Target $27.8M of cash and a $4M cost action, which puts leverage near 3.5 times. The biggest risk is that clearance markdowns lower EBITDA faster than the cash lowers debt, so time-box the clearance and ring-fence it to genuinely slow stock.

Case 2: the first four weeks of a 13-week cash forecast

Prompt. You are on day one of an engagement at a manufacturer. The lender requires a rolling 13-week cash forecast and a minimum liquidity of $5.0M at all times. The controller gives you opening cash of $10.0M and the next four weeks of expected flows. Build the first four weeks and tell the CEO what you see.

Inputs. Customer receipts are $6.0M, $5.5M, $6.0M and $5.5M in weeks 1 to 4. Suppliers are paid $4.0M every week. Payroll is $3.0M, paid every second week, so in weeks 2 and 4. Rent is $1.0M, paid in week 1. Interest of $1.5M is due in week 4. Other operating costs are $1.0M every week.

Structure. Receipts in, payments out, net per week, closing cash, then compare each week to the $5.0M floor. A forecast is a table of timing, not a profit calculation, so a profitable business can still fail it.

The math, week by week. Week 1 payments: suppliers $4.0M + rent $1.0M + other $1.0M = $6.0M, net $0, closing $10.0M. Week 2: $4.0M + payroll $3.0M + other $1.0M = $8.0M, net -$2.5M, closing $7.5M. Week 3: $4.0M + $1.0M = $5.0M, net +$1.0M, closing $8.5M. Week 4: $4.0M + payroll $3.0M + interest $1.5M + other $1.0M = $9.5M, net -$4.0M, closing $4.5M.

What you see. Cash dips below the $5.0M floor in week 4, by $0.5M, because payroll and interest land in the same week. Nothing is wrong with the average week; the problem is one date. Then stress it: if customers pay 10% slower, four weeks of receipts of $23.0M lose $2.3M and week 4 closes at $4.5M - $2.3M = $2.2M, nearly $3M under the floor.

Recommendation. Tell the CEO the forecast breaches the minimum in week 4 even on the base case. Close the gap by moving $2.0M of the week 4 supplier payments to week 5, which lifts week 4 closing cash to $6.5M, and by asking the largest customers for early payment before week 4. Warn that the supplier delay is borrowing, not saving, and that the slow-payment case needs a second lever before week 4. Then update the forecast weekly and report the variance against the prior week, because lenders trust a forecast that explains its misses.

Case 3: labor cost takeout at a home care operator

Prompt. A home care operator bills $1.0B a year. Margins are thin and the cash is tight. The CEO says the company has too many caregivers on payroll but will not accept any cut in care quality. How much can labor cost fall?

Clarifying questions. How is revenue earned: billed hours times a rate? What do caregivers cost per paid hour, and how many hours are paid versus billed? What fraction of non-billed hours is unavoidable travel? Use these answers: 20M billed hours at $50 an hour, 23M paid hours at $30 an hour loaded.

Structure. Split labor cost into rate and hours, since rate is mostly set by the market and hours are management's lever. Within hours, separate billed from unbilled paid time (travel, gaps between visits, idle time), then ask which of that is structural and which is scheduling slack.

The math. Revenue is 20M x $50 = $1.0B. Labor cost is 23M x $30 = $690M. Utilization, billed hours divided by paid hours, is 20M / 23M = 87%. To bill 20M hours at a 92% target you need only 20M / 0.92 = 21.74M paid hours, a cut of 23M - 21.74M = 1.26M hours, worth 1.26M x $30 = $37.8M. That target assumes the unbilled gap is almost all slack. If a third of the gap is structural travel, a 90% target is safer: 20M / 0.90 = 22.22M paid hours, a cut of 0.78M hours, worth $23.3M.

Recommendation. Plan for $23M of labor savings a year by moving utilization from 87% to 90%, with $38M as the stretch if scheduling analysis shows the rest is slack. Take the hours out through scheduling, route clustering and attrition, not layoffs, and set a staffing benchmark per region so the gain does not leak back. Track missed visits and client complaints weekly as the quality guard. The main risk is that regions with long travel times cannot reach 90%, so set targets by region instead of one national number.

This is the same type of problem as the care operator case study in AlixPartners' public work, with invented numbers. It is a teaching example, not a reproduction of that engagement.

Case 4: procurement savings at a components manufacturer

Prompt. A components manufacturer has $600M of revenue and $42M of EBITDA, a 7% margin. It spends $240M a year on purchased materials and wants a cost program that does not require closing a plant. How much can procurement deliver? (This is a guess at what sourcing cases look like, based on coaches' expectations rather than a candidate report.)

Clarifying questions. How is spend split by category, and how many suppliers are there in each? Which prices follow an index? What share of spend can be rebid within a year? Use these answers: steel $100M, mostly indexed to a commodity price; plastics $80M with 9 suppliers; packaging $60M with custom specifications.

Structure. Go category by category and name the lever that fits each: for indexed goods you can only negotiate the premium over the index, for fragmented goods you consolidate and rebid, and for custom goods you change the specification. Then haircut the total for execution.

The math.

That is $12.8M / $240M = 5.3% of spend, and $12.8M / $42M = 30% of EBITDA, so margin would rise from 7.0% to $54.8M / $600M = 9.1%. No program lands in full, so apply a 70% realization rate: $12.8M x 0.7 = $9.0M, which lifts EBITDA to $51.0M and margin to 8.5%. Subtract about $2M of one-time cost for qualifying new suppliers and changing packaging tooling.

Recommendation. Launch the plastics rebid and the packaging specification change first, since together they hold $10.8M of the $12.8M, and treat steel as a premium negotiation, not a savings engine. Commit to $9M of annual savings, net of a $2M one-time cost, and track it against the purchase price variance at invoice level so savings are real and not just quoted. The main risk is quality: a cheaper supplier or a thinner pack that raises defects or returns would cost more than it saves.

Practice a packaging cost reduction target

ManufacturingEasy

Practice the packaging case

Case 5: which plant to close, and does it pay back

Prompt. A packaging manufacturer runs two plants, A and B. Total demand is 100,000 units a year and has been flat. The board asks whether to close a plant, and which one.

Clarifying questions. What is each plant's capacity, volume and cost structure? Are the customers served by each plant different, and what does it cost to ship from the other plant? What does a closure cost one time? Use these answers: plant A capacity 120,000 units, running 70,000, fixed cost $20M, variable cost $90 a unit. Plant B capacity 60,000, running 30,000, fixed cost $12M, variable cost $100 a unit. Moving B's volume adds freight of $25 a unit. A closure costs $15M one time in severance and relocation.

Structure. First feasibility, can one plant hold all the volume. Then run-rate savings, then one-time cost and payback, then the risks that numbers hide.

Feasibility. Only A can take 100,000 units, since B's capacity is 60,000. Closing B puts A at 100,000 / 120,000 = 83% utilization. Closing A is impossible.

Run-rate savings from closing B. Fixed cost saved is $12.0M. Moving 30,000 units from $100 to $90 of variable cost saves 30,000 x $10 = $0.3M. Extra freight costs 30,000 x $25 = $0.75M. Net: $12.0M + $0.3M - $0.75M = $11.55M a year.

Payback. $15M / $11.55M = 1.3 years, about 16 months. Now stress it: if A needs $1.5M a year of extra fixed cost for another shift supervisor and maintenance, savings fall to $10.05M and payback stretches to $15M / $10.05M = 1.5 years.

Recommendation. Close plant B, move its volume to A and plan for about $10M to $11.5M of annual savings with payback in 16 to 18 months. Protect the downside: keep B's customer commitments in a transition plan, stage the move over two quarters to avoid service gaps, and hold a back-up supplier option because one plant is now a single point of failure. The biggest risk is demand growth: at 83% utilization A has room for about 20,000 more units, and beyond that the savings turn into a capacity problem.

Practice the plant consolidation decision

ManufacturingMedium

Practice the plant case

Case 6: closing stores when the leases are the problem

Prompt. A specialty retailer has 30 stores that lose money. Each shows a four-wall loss of $0.5M a year, which means store EBITDA after paying that store's rent. Management wants to close all 30 and asks if that is right. Cash is tight.

Clarifying questions. What is each store's rent, and how long is the lease? Can leases be exited, and at what price? When a store closes, do customers shift to nearby stores? Use these answers: rent $0.6M a year per store, 3 years remaining. A landlord settlement would cost 50% of the remaining rent. A typical store sells $4M a year, 20% of that sales transfers to a nearby store at a 30% contribution margin. Use a three-year horizon.

Structure. The four-wall loss is the wrong number to compare. The right comparison is cash outcomes over the lease: stay open, close and keep paying rent, or close and settle the lease. Then add what customers transfer.

The math, per store over three years.

• Stay open: $0.5M loss x 3 years = -$1.5M.
• Rent is $0.6M, so the store makes $0.1M before rent. Close and pay full rent: -$0.6M x 3 = -$1.8M, plus transferred sales of $4M x 20% x 30% = $0.24M a year, or +$0.72M over three years, for -$1.08M.
• Close and settle at 50%: settlement $0.6M x 3 x 50% = $0.9M, plus the $0.72M transfer gain, for -$0.18M.

Settling saves $1.32M a store, $39.6M across 30 stores over three years. But the settlement is paid up front: 30 x $0.9M = $27M of cash in year one. The annual gain is $0.5M + $0.24M = $0.74M a store, or $22.2M a year, so the $27M pays back in $27M / $22.2M = 1.2 years.

Recommendation. Close, but only with lease settlements, and do it in waves. Closing and paying full rent gains $12.6M over three years, about a third of the settlement route, because you give up the $0.1M a store makes before rent. Rank the 30 stores by remaining rent and landlord willingness, settle the cheapest first, and use the early savings to fund the next wave. Because the settlements are $27M of cash on a company short of it, confirm the cash runway before committing to all 30. The main risk is that the 20% sales transfer is an assumption, so test it on stores that have closed before.

This case differs from the retail liquidity example in the AlixPartners case interview guide, which closes stores to free working capital. Here the lease exit price is what decides the answer.

Practice a retail turnaround strategy

RetailMedium

Practice the retail case

Case 7: reading a product-line profit table

Prompt. A $280M components supplier makes four products and has a break-even year. The CEO sees two products losing money after overhead and wants them cut. Here is the profit table from finance. What would you do?

Product profit is revenue less variable and direct fixed costs. The footnote says shared overhead of $56M, 20% of revenue, is allocated by revenue share.

Read the exhibit before the numbers. The table has three levels of profit, and the decision depends on which one is real. C and D lose money only after an allocation of $10M and $6M that finance spread by revenue. Before that allocation, both products make money: $7M and $4M.

The math. Product profit totals $28M + $16M + $7M + $4M = $55M. Overhead is $56M, so EBITDA is $55M - $56M = -$1M. Now test the CEO's idea. If you cut C and D, you lose $7M + $4M = $11M of product profit. If overhead does not change, EBITDA falls to -$1M - $11M = -$12M. Cutting only helps if at least $11M of the $56M overhead, about 20%, actually disappears with them.

The better fix. Overhead at 20% of revenue is the real problem. Suppose a program removes $16M of overhead, 29% of the pool, and a 3% price increase on A and B, which have $200M of revenue, adds $6M of profit. Keeping all four products, EBITDA becomes -$1M + $16M + $6M = $21M, a 7.5% margin. Cutting C and D and taking the same overhead out gives -$1M - $11M + $16M = $4M. Keeping the products is $17M better.

Recommendation. Do not cut C or D on this table. Ask finance for the overhead that truly disappears if each product goes, cut shared overhead from $56M to about $40M, and take the 3% price increase on A and B. Expect about $21M of EBITDA if volumes hold. The risk is that the price rise loses volume on A and B, which carry the margin, so test the increase on a subset of customers first.

Practice a profit-improvement case with SKU and plant math

ManufacturingMedium

Practice the product-mix case

Case 8: fix it out of court or file, a recovery waterfall

Prompt. A manufacturer has EBITDA of $30M and cannot refinance its debt. It owes $130M of first lien loans and $120M of unsecured notes. Advisers estimate a restructuring would value the business at 6 times EBITDA, and a Chapter 11 filing would cost about $15M in professional fees. Management asks whether to negotiate with creditors out of court or file. Who gets what, and which route do you recommend?

Clarifying questions. What are the maturities and who holds each class? Is the 6 times multiple a going-concern value? Are there any critical vendors who must be paid to keep supply? Is the first lien secured on all assets? Use these answers: the 6 times value is a going concern, the first lien is secured on all assets, and unsecured trade creditors are small enough to ignore.

Structure. Value first, then the waterfall in order of priority, for each route. Then ask which route lets creditors recover more, since creditors vote and no plan works without enough of them.

Value. Enterprise value is 6 x $30M = $180M. The first lien of $130M is 130 / 30 = 4.3 times EBITDA, and covered 180 / 130 = 1.4 times by value, so those lenders are safe either way.

Route 1: Chapter 11. Fees come off the top: $180M - $15M = $165M. First lien takes $130M, in full. That leaves $165M - $130M = $35M for the $120M of notes: $35M / $120M = 29% recovery.

Route 2: out of court. There are no court fees, so $180M is available. First lien takes $130M, which leaves $50M for the notes, and the maximum recovery is $50M / $120M = 42%. Any offer between 29% and 42% leaves the noteholders better off than Chapter 11 while leaving value for the company. An offer of 35%, which is $42M of value, saves the company $8M against the 42% ceiling and gives noteholders 6 points more than they would get in court. The gap exists because the fees, $15M or 12.5 points of the notes, vanish.

Sensitivity. Value is the most important input. At 5 times EBITDA, value is $150M. Chapter 11 leaves $150M - $15M - $130M = $5M for the notes, a 4% recovery. Out of court leaves $20M, 17%. Each turn of the multiple is $30M of value, which is 25 points of noteholder recovery. The lower the value, the more creditors gain from avoiding court, and the harder they will bargain over the number.

Recommendation. Open an out-of-court exchange with the noteholders at around 35% of face value, paired with an amend-and-extend for the first lien, and prepare a Chapter 11 filing in parallel as the fallback. The first lien is well covered and should accept an extension for a fee. The main risk is holdouts: out of court works only if enough noteholders agree, and a few can refuse and wait for a better offer. If holdouts are likely, a prepackaged filing keeps the agreed terms and binds them. Before any of this, pressure-test the 6 times multiple, because it drives every recovery figure.

Practice a keep, restructure or shut decision

AutomotiveMedium

Practice the brand portfolio case

Fit and the rest of the process

The case is one stage. Behavioral probing runs through every AlixPartners interview, and the firm lists four qualities it looks for: entrepreneurial, self-starter, analytical and collaborative. Rehearse your stories for those on the behavioral practice simulator, and get the process, the assessment test and the timeline from the AlixPartners case interview guide. For what the offer looks like, see the AlixPartners salary breakdown, for summer roles the AlixPartners internship guide, and for the firm itself AlixPartners consulting. Your CV is screened before any case, so run it through the consulting resume grader.

How to use these eight cases

Do not read them twice. Run the loop below on each, and turn every miss into a specific rep.

For more worked material on the same problem types, see the restructuring case interview guide, the cost reduction case guide, the supply chain case guide and the operations case guide. Peer firms with similar cases are covered in the Alvarez & Marsal case interview guide and the Kearney case interview guide, and the case interview examples hub collects worked cases across firms.

Prep plans for McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Deloitte, Accenture, EY-Parthenon, Kearney, Oliver Wyman, Roland Berger, L.E.K., OC&C, Strategy&, Simon-Kucher, Arthur D. Little, Capital One and your target firm. Choose your firm in the plan builder.

Turn this guide into a weekly plan

Choose your firm and interview date and get the weeks laid out, from the first lesson to the last case.

Build my prep plan

1

Learn the format

17 steps

• Learn how to caseGuided learning · 35 min
• The Case Interview MethodLesson · 8 min
• Profitability & Turnaround: AfrihealSkill drill · 5 min
• Profitability & Turnaround: Berty BankSkill drill · 5 min

Sources and further reading (checked November 5, 2026)

• AlixPartners, How we hire (five example steps; case interview and/or technical or skills assessment depends on the role): alixpartners.com/careers/top-place-to-work/how-we-hire
• AlixPartners, Business Analyst Accelerated Consulting Programme (case study purpose; assessment has no pass or fail): alixpartners.com/careers/students-and-recent-graduates/business-analyst-programme
• AlixPartners, Assessment (self-administered online exercises, about 2 to 3 hours): alixpartners.com/careers/top-place-to-work/assessment
• AlixPartners, Turnaround & Restructuring (liquidity management including a 13-week cash flow model, restructuring advisory, creditor advisory): alixpartners.com/what-we-do/turnaround-restructuring
• AlixPartners, care operator case study (firm-reported $50M+ savings plan and 5% cost base cut in eight weeks): alixpartners.com/what-we-do/case-studies/care-operator
• AlixPartners, automotive company case study (firm-reported global 13-week cash forecast in about two weeks): alixpartners.com/what-we-do/case-studies/automotive-company
• AlixPartners, working capital optimization article (billing, payment terms, inventory, incentives): alixpartners.com/insights/102msfg/working-capital-optimization-operational-transformation-for-a-sustainable-cash-c
• AlixPartners, Client Stories and Case Studies (the firm's published client work, not interview cases): alixpartners.com/what-we-do/case-studies
• Case-Prep, AlixPartners case interview guide, a prep vendor's report of case length (25 to 35 minutes inside a 45 to 60 minute interview) and exhibits at intervals, last updated February 11, 2026: case-prep.com/firms/alixpartners
• CaseBasix AlixPartners case interview page, a prep vendor's report of case style, sectors, round lengths and no calculator: casebasix.com/pages/alixpartners-case-interview
• PrepLounge, AlixPartners Business Analyst program thread, coach answers from March 2025: preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/alix-partners-business-analyst-program-22314
• PrepLounge, AlixPartners sourcing case study thread, coach expectations from February to March 2025: preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/alix-partner-sourcing-case-study-22118