Three candidates in quantitative-leaning Gallagher roles describe a mix of motivation questions, technical fundamentals in statistics, SQL, Excel or pricing, and discussion-heavy rounds with the team or managers; the exact structure varied by role.
$103K
Avg. Base Comp
$120K
Avg. Total Comp
3-4 rounds
Typical Rounds
Not reported
Process Length
Gallagher's quantitative interviews, as three candidates describe them, combine a motivation check with technical fundamentals. The three reports come from different titles (Actuarial Advisor, Actuarial Analyst and Catastrophe Modeling Analyst), so treat them as adjacent signals rather than one fixed process. Only the Actuarial Analyst candidate described the role as quantitative analyst.
All three were asked, or advised to prepare, why you want to work at Gallagher. The Actuarial Advisor candidate, who received an offer, was asked about interest in the company, the role and a preferred actuarial domain. The Catastrophe Modeling candidate was asked about Gallagher early in a long in-person conversation.
Technical content varied. The Actuarial Analyst candidate faced statistical distributions, a product pricing question, Excel work and questions on Python and numpy, and said the Excel and pricing precision cost them the offer. The Catastrophe Modeling candidate recalled SQL joins, DELETE versus TRUNCATE, CTEs, stored procedures, and statistics such as the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem. The Actuarial Advisor candidate described general insurance principles and risk reasoning instead.
Practice walking through a pricing problem in Excel, review SQL and basic statistics, and prepare a specific answer on why Gallagher and how you think about risk. Only one of the three received an offer, so expect the technical bar to matter.
Synthesized from 3 candidate reports by our editorial team.
Had an interview recently?
Share your experience. Unlock the full guide.
Real interview reports from people who went through the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. process.
I applied through a referral, which I think helped me get serious consideration right away. The process had three rounds total, and they were led by senior members of the team, which gave me confidence I was being evaluated seriously.
The first round was behavioral and pretty straightforward. They asked why I wanted to join Gallagher, what I knew about the role, and which domain in actuarial science I was most interested in. These weren't trick questions—they genuinely wanted to understand my motivation and background. I came prepared with specific reasons for wanting to work there and had researched the company beforehand, which I think made a real difference.
The subsequent rounds dug deeper into technical and personality fit. The questions were in-depth and focused on general insurance principles rather than obscure quantitative problems. They seemed more interested in how I thought about risk, problem-solving approach, and whether I could articulate my reasoning clearly. Because I'd prepared answers to common questions and reflected on my experience, I felt ready. The whole process was conducted over Zoom, which made it manageable to stay focused across multiple rounds.
The key takeaway for me was that they weren't just testing knowledge—they were assessing whether I understood the insurance domain and could contribute meaningfully to their team. I got the offer, and I think it's because I took time to genuinely learn about the role and the company rather than treating it like a generic technical interview.
Prep tip from this candidate
For this role, prepare in-depth answers about why you're interested in Gallagher and the insurance domain specifically—technical depth alone isn't enough. The rounds emphasize domain knowledge and personality fit, so research their business model and be ready to articulate what aspects of actuarial science or insurance appeal to you.
Share your own interview experience to unlock all reports, or subscribe for full access.
Sourced from candidate reports and verified by our team.
Topics based on recent interview experiences.
Featured question at Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
Write a query that returns all neighborhoods that have 0 users.
| Question | |
|---|---|
| 2nd Highest Salary | |
| Employee Salaries | |
| Bagging vs Boosting | |
| Hurdles In Data Projects | |
| Target Indices | |
| Size of Joins | |
| P-value to a Layman | |
| Assumptions of Linear Regression | |
| Duplicate Rows | |
| Type-ahead Search | |
| Three Zebras | |
| Precision and Recall | |
| Data Preparation for Imbalanced Data | |
| SARIMA in Retail Forecasting | |
| Overfit Avoidance | |
| Type I and II Errors | |
| Credit Card Fraud Model | |
| Swap Variables | |
| Multicollinearity in Regression | |
| Client Solution Pushback | |
| Your Strengths and Weaknesses | |
| Explaining Linear Regression to Different Audiences | |
| Stakeholder Communication | |
| Random Forest from Scratch | |
| Google Earth Storage | |
| Branch Sales Pivot | |
| Correlation in Regression | |
| Linear vs Logistic Regression | |
| Designing a Fraud Detection System |
Synthesized from candidate reports. Individual experiences may vary.
Two candidates report an opening call with a recruiter or HR covering background, interest in Gallagher and understanding of the role, while the Actuarial Advisor candidate described a behavioral first round with senior team members. Expect to explain why Gallagher and what you know about the role, and you may be asked which area of the field interests you.
One candidate reports an online test before in-person rounds, and another a technical round with statistical distributions, product pricing, Excel and Python/numpy questions. The Catastrophe Modeling candidate recalled SQL joins, CTEs, stored procedures and basic statistics. The exact content likely varies by role, so prepare fundamentals broadly.
Candidates describe later rounds as discussion-heavy. One cited a face-to-face session of over 90 minutes that felt conversational, and another a hiring-team round on culture fit and past projects. The Actuarial Advisor candidate reported senior interviewers asking about risk and problem-solving. Be ready to explain your reasoning clearly.
The Catastrophe Modeling candidate reported a final manager round of about 22 minutes, then waited roughly two weeks for a rejection. The Actuarial Analyst candidate said the whole process took about a week. Timing may vary by team, so treat these as individual reports rather than a standard timeline.
