Clevency
CFA Level 2 pass rates have historically ranged between approximately 39% and 54%, with substantial variation across exam windows. The transition from pencil-and-paper to computer-based testing (CBT) in 2021 marked a structural break in the data — pass rates in the CBT era have generally sat at the lower end of the historical range. Understanding this history helps candidates calibrate their expectations and preparation intensity accurately. For the Level 1 counterpart and how the two series compare, see the CFA Level 1 pass rate analysis.
Level 2 is widely regarded as the most conceptually demanding of the three CFA exams. It tests application rather than recall, uses a more complex format, and covers material at a depth that surprises many candidates who underestimated the step up from Level 1. The pass rate history reflects all of this — and reveals trends worth understanding before you sit.
CFA Level 2 Pass Rates: Historical Data
CFA Institute publishes pass rates for each level after each exam window. The figures below represent the published pass rates for CFA Level 2 across available reporting periods:
| Year / Window | Approximate Pass Rate | Format |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 46% | Paper-based |
| 2016 | 46% | Paper-based |
| 2017 | 47% | Paper-based |
| 2018 | 45% | Paper-based |
| 2019 | 44% | Paper-based |
| 2020 | 40% | Paper-based (disrupted by pandemic) |
| 2021 (Nov) | 40% | First CBT window |
| 2022 (May) | 40% | CBT |
| 2022 (Aug) | 44% | CBT |
| 2023 (Feb) | 48% | CBT |
| 2023 (Aug) | 44% | CBT |
| 2024 (May) | 46% | CBT |
| 2024 (Aug) | 43% | CBT |
Note: Pass rates are rounded to the nearest whole number based on published CFA Institute figures. Some historical windows may have minor variations from these approximations.
The long-run average across these windows sits in the mid-40s. The pre-CBT era (2015–2019) showed relatively stable pass rates in the 44–47% range. The CBT era shows more variability across windows, with some sitting as low as 39–40% and others recovering to the mid-40s.
The Pre-CBT Era: Paper-Based Testing (Through 2020)
Until 2021, CFA Level 2 was administered twice a year as a paper-based exam — a single global testing day in May and a smaller window in some regions. The paper-based format had a highly consistent structure: all candidates globally sat the same questions on the same day, and the results reflected a large, uniform cohort.
Pass rates in this era were relatively stable, typically in the 44–48% range. The 2020 figure of 40% was an outlier, reflecting the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Exam administrations were cancelled and rescheduled in 2020, which affected the composition of the candidate pool and the preparation timelines of those who sat. The lower pass rate that year is best understood as a pandemic-year anomaly rather than a trend signal.
The CBT Transition in 2021: What Changed
CFA Institute moved to computer-based testing in 2021 for all three levels. This represented the most significant structural change to the CFA exam in decades. Several aspects of the transition are relevant to understanding the pass rate data:
Multiple exam windows per year
The CBT format introduced multiple exam windows across the year — February, May, August, and November depending on the level. This means that instead of one or two large annual cohorts, candidates now sit in smaller groups across more windows. The composition of each window's candidate pool varies in ways that the paper-based single-day format did not produce.
August exam windows, for example, attract a different mix of candidates than February windows — in part because of timing relative to when Level 1 results are released and when candidates are able to register for Level 2. These pool composition differences contribute to the variability in CBT-era pass rates across windows.
Adaptive difficulty and question bank effects
CBT exams draw from a larger question bank and may vary slightly in difficulty across windows depending on which questions are selected. While CFA Institute uses psychometric equating to adjust for difficulty variation, the pass rates across CBT windows are less uniform than the paper-based era suggests — reflecting both the smaller cohort sizes and any residual difficulty variation that equating does not fully eliminate.
Changes in exam structure at Level 2
The CBT transition did not change the core structure of Level 2 — it remains 88 questions across 22 item sets. However, the candidate experience changed in ways that matter. Screen-based reading of vignettes requires a slightly different skill set from paper-based reading. Candidates who prepared extensively with paper-based materials from the pre-CBT era may have found the digital format unfamiliar in the first CBT cycles.
Why the CBT Pass Rates Sit Lower on Average
The CBT-era pass rates have generally been at the lower end of the historical range. Several explanations have been proposed, and most are likely partially correct:
Smaller cohort effects: With candidates spread across more windows, each window's cohort is smaller. Smaller cohorts produce more variable pass rates — a few percentage points of variability that would average out over a large single-day cohort shows up more clearly in a smaller window.
Candidate pool shifts: The CBT format has made the exam more accessible in some respects — more scheduling flexibility, more testing centres in more locations. This has attracted some candidates who may be earlier in their preparation or whose motivation for sitting was partly driven by the increased convenience of scheduling. A broader access pool may include a higher proportion of underprepared candidates.
Question bank calibration: The early CBT windows likely involved some adjustment to the question bank and the equating process. If early CBT questions were slightly harder on average than the Angoff-calibrated MPS anticipated, pass rates would be lower until the bank stabilised.
What the Trend Means for 2025 and 2026 Candidates
Based on the CBT-era data available, candidates preparing for Level 2 in 2025 and 2026 should calibrate their expectations to the CBT-era norms: a pass rate in the low-to-mid 40s is the central expectation, with some windows producing results at the higher or lower end of that range.
The historical paper-based figures of 46–48% should not be taken as the benchmark. The exam is delivered in a different format, to candidates distributed across more windows, with updated question banks. The relevant comparison is the CBT-era data, which suggests a somewhat more challenging environment on average.
For preparation purposes, the historical trend reinforces a consistent conclusion: Level 2 candidates need to prepare for application-level questions under time pressure, with a particular focus on the high-weight topics of equity valuation and financial statement analysis. No exam window in the historical record has produced a Level 2 pass rate above 56% — and that ceiling has never been close to the 70–80% pass rates that some professional exams achieve. The difficulty is structural.
How Level 2 Difficulty Has Evolved Over Time
Beyond the format change, the substantive difficulty of Level 2 has evolved as the curriculum has been updated. CFA Institute refreshes the curriculum annually, adding readings that reflect developments in investment practice. Recent curriculum updates have introduced content on alternative data, ESG integration, and private markets that was not present in earlier exam cycles.
Candidates sitting Level 2 in 2025 or 2026 are facing a curriculum that is broader than candidates who sat in 2015 or 2016 faced. The historical pass rate from 2016 was achieved by a candidate pool sitting a somewhat different exam. This is another reason to treat the paper-based era pass rates as historical context rather than a direct guide to current difficulty.
Using Historical Pass Rate Data in Your Preparation
The most practical use of the historical Level 2 pass rate data is calibration. Knowing that the pass rate has never been above 56% and currently sits in the low-to-mid 40s tells you that the exam is genuinely challenging, that the majority of sitters fail in any given window, and that your preparation needs to put you clearly above the performance threshold — not just at it.
The topics that have driven Level 2 failures across every exam era remain consistent: equity valuation (particularly DDM, FCFE/FCFF, and residual income models), financial statement analysis (particularly pension adjustments and off-balance-sheet items), and fixed income (term structure and credit analysis at Level 2 depth). These are the areas where preparation time has the highest expected return.
Candidates who take full-length, timed Level 2 mock exams and review their results at the sub-topic level — identifying not just that they are weak in equity but specifically which valuation models are causing errors — consistently perform above the pass rate averages shown in the historical data. The diagnostic step is what converts a general understanding of where the exam is hard into a specific action plan for the remaining weeks of preparation.
You can explore our Level 2 mock exams and the accompanying diagnostic report to build that sub-topic understanding from your own performance data.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the average CFA Level 2 pass rate?
Across all available exam windows from 2015 to 2024, the average Level 2 pass rate is approximately 44%. The CBT-era average (2021 onward) sits slightly below the pre-CBT average of roughly 46%.
Is CFA Level 2 harder than Level 1?
Most candidates report Level 2 as harder than Level 1, despite having a higher pass rate. This reflects the candidate pool effect: Level 2 candidates have already passed Level 1 and are generally better prepared on average. The exam itself is harder in terms of conceptual depth and question format, but the pool sitting it is more experienced.
Does the exam window affect my chances of passing Level 2?
CBT-era data shows some variability across windows, with February and August windows sometimes producing slightly different pass rates than May. However, the differences are within a few percentage points and are driven more by cohort composition effects than by the exam being structurally easier or harder in a given window. Your preparation is a stronger predictor of outcome than your choice of window.
How has the shift to CBT affected Level 2 difficulty?
The CBT format changed how the exam is delivered but not its core structure at Level 2. The item set format remains the same. The main candidate-facing change is screen-based reading of vignettes, which requires some adjustment for candidates who have prepared primarily with paper materials. Overall, CBT-era pass rates suggest the exam is slightly harder on average than the paper-based era, though the causes are multi-factorial.
Is Level 2 getting harder over time?
The curriculum has broadened to include newer content areas including alternative data and ESG integration. The question bank for CBT has evolved since 2021. Pass rates in the CBT era have generally been at the lower end of the historical range. These factors suggest that the effective difficulty of Level 2 has not decreased and may have modestly increased compared to the paper-based era.