CFA Level II topic weights 2026

2026 Level II topic weight ranges

CFA Institute publishes the following ranges for the 2026 CFA Level II exam. Each range is a proportion of the exam’s topic coverage, not an exact forecast for a particular administration.

The labels above follow CFA Institute’s current Level II page. Some older summaries call Corporate Finance “Corporate Issuers” or call Portfolio Construction “Portfolio Management.” For year alignment, use the names and weights in the 2026 Level II outline.

What the ranges tell you

The upper-range topics are Ethical and Professional Standards, Financial Statement Analysis, Equities, Fixed Income, and Portfolio Construction, each listed at 10-15%. The remaining five areas are listed at 5-10%. This is a useful planning signal: keep meaningful study time for every topic, with more practice capacity for the five upper-range areas.

The ranges are not fixed question counts. The exam contains 88 questions in 22 vignette item sets, with four questions attached to each vignette. A weight range does not let you infer that a topic will get a precise number of sets, or that one administration must land at the top of each range. Topics may be placed in either session or across both sessions. Use weights to allocate preparation, not to predict the exam’s exact composition.

The ten topic ranges do not function as ten independent promises that each area will land at its maximum simultaneously. The ranges describe the blueprint boundaries for topic representation. It is safer to plan across their intervals than to add upper bounds and try to convert the total into an exam. Because each question is part of a vignette set, topic allocation also does not necessarily divide into neat four-question blocks.

Why weights should shape, but not dictate, study

A higher weight can justify more total practice, but it does not make a low-weight subject optional. A short topic can contain difficult methods, and one weak area can produce repeated errors across a whole item set. Your plan should combine three inputs: published weight, your diagnostic accuracy, and the cost of repairing the skill. A high-weight topic you already handle well may need less time than a lower-weight area where you have a major gap.

Level II tests application through shared cases. A topic’s weight is not the same as the number of isolated questions you can answer from memory. A vignette can ask several different tasks: select a valuation input, calculate an estimate, interpret the result, and assess a limitation. Review must cover both the underlying knowledge and the ability to locate supporting facts in the case.

A practical allocation example

Suppose you can study 12 focused hours each week for 20 weeks, or 240 hours. One reasonable starting allocation gives around half the time to the five 10-15% areas and the other half to the five 5-10% areas. That is about 12 hours per upper-range area and 12 per lower-range area across the plan. It does not mean every topic gets identical effort: after a diagnostic, shift hours toward the topics where performance is weakest.

For instance, if Financial Statement Analysis is both high weight and weak, assign it additional sessions. If Ethics is high weight but your scenario judgments are already reliable, maintain it with mixed practice instead of repeatedly rereading familiar rules. If Derivatives is lower range but you cannot price or interpret the products in the current curriculum, allocate enough time to close that gap. This is a dynamic plan, not a fixed proportional quota.

Reserve time for spaced review and full mixed sets. If all 240 hours are divided among first-pass lessons, you may reach the end with no time to retrieve the concepts under exam conditions. A simple structure could use the early weeks to learn and solve targeted questions, the middle weeks to revisit weak modules, and the final weeks for mixed timed sets plus error repair. Preserve weekly review so older topics do not disappear while new material accumulates.

A worked study-prioritization example

Imagine a learner takes a 40-question diagnostic spread across the ten topic areas. On a rough five-question-per-area sample, the learner scores 2 of 5 in Financial Statement Analysis, 3 of 5 in Equities, 4 of 5 in Fixed Income, and 4 of 5 in Ethics. These are small samples and are not statistically precise predictions. They do, however, flag a plausible priority: inspect the missed Financial Statement Analysis tasks and determine whether the cause is accounting knowledge, ratio interpretation, or vignette reading.

If review shows that both missed FSA items came from confusing an accounting treatment with a cash-flow effect, schedule a lesson review and a fresh set of questions on that distinction. Do not simply reread the same solved questions. For Equities, a 3-of-5 result warrants examining whether the errors involve model choice or arithmetic. For Fixed Income and Ethics, maintain competence with spaced mixed sets rather than removing them from the schedule. The official weights help rank attention; the error analysis determines the next activity.

Use learning outcomes to turn weights into work

Each curriculum learning module begins with learning outcome statements. Convert each statement into a task you can demonstrate. “Calculate” means solve with unfamiliar inputs and check units. “Analyze” means compare the effect of assumptions or methods. “Evaluate” means reach a conclusion and explain which evidence supports it. This is more useful than assigning study time to a list of chapter titles alone.

For each topic, make a compact map of formulas, assumptions, and common interpretation traps. Then practice the concepts in vignette form. After a question, write a one-line explanation of why the correct answer follows from the case and why the nearest distractor fails. A record of recurring errors becomes a better revision plan than the topic weight alone.

How to track coverage without gaming the blueprint

Build a simple tracker with topic, learning outcome, date practiced, timed accuracy, and error category. Use performance across several sets rather than one score. A low result on a short quiz may reflect unfamiliar wording or a narrow module; repeated misses across new questions indicate a real gap. Re-test after enough time has passed to require retrieval rather than immediate recognition.

Set a minimum coverage rule: every topic receives at least one full learning pass and at least one later mixed retrieval session. Then give additional time where either the official range or your evidence shows a need. This prevents a common planning failure in which a candidate concentrates on the largest subjects until the calendar runs out, leaving smaller areas unseen.

The Level II format changes how you interpret weights

The exam is not ten separate topic sections. CFA Institute says topic areas can appear in either session or both, and questions in a set share the vignette. Therefore, your preparation should include mixed topic identification and case-based work. When a heading identifies the topic, you still need to select the precise method from the question. Practice should train the sequence from topic knowledge to evidence selection to answer.

A time budget based only on expected item counts can also be misleading. Some candidate questions may be quick, while others require substantial reading or multi-step calculations. Practice each topic under realistic time pressure, but avoid assigning a fixed number of minutes to a topic based on its percentage. Use the 12-minute average per four-question set as the broad session pacing reference, then improve efficiency from recorded performance.

How often should the weights be revisited?

Use the 2026 ranges when your exam is based on the 2026 curriculum. The curriculum is updated and CFA Institute publishes year-specific outlines. If your registered exam year changes, align your topic labels, readings, learning outcomes, and weights to that year. Do not assume a previous year’s exact curriculum or study plan remains current.

Weights are a planning aid, not a score guarantee. They do not tell you the Minimum Passing Score, nor do they reveal how many questions you need correct in one topic. CFA Institute reports an overall scaled result against an MPS. A strong plan aims for broad, repeatable competence rather than betting on a preferred topic mix.

Balancing broad coverage with specialization

A candidate sometimes sees a large subject range and concludes that the other areas can be left until the end. That is risky because the exam’s item sets are not guaranteed to follow a predictable sequence, and a lower-range area can still contain several linked questions. Broad coverage is the foundation; additional attention should follow diagnosed weaknesses. If you have one evening available, use it to close a specific repeated gap rather than reread a strong topic simply because it has a high weight.

A practical weekly plan can alternate learning and retrieval. For example, dedicate two study blocks to new material, one to questions from the same topic, and one to mixed review of earlier topics. Rotate which areas appear in the mixed block so that each returns over time. Near the end of the plan, increase the proportion of timed case sets while preserving a short targeted session for persistent weaknesses. This builds both coverage and the switching skill Level II requires.

Avoid false precision when turning a range into hours

A percentage interval is not a precise formula for dividing your calendar. If you allocate exactly 15% of time to every topic with a 10-15% range, the total would exceed your available hours. If you allocate the lower bound to every topic, that does not mean the exam will use every lower bound. Instead, use the ranges to distinguish broad relative importance, set a minimum exposure for all areas, and adjust with performance evidence.

For instance, with 100 study hours remaining, you might first guarantee 5 hours for each topic, or 50 hours total, for a concise review and retrieval pass. The remaining 50 hours can go to topics with upper-range weights and to diagnosed gaps. A weak Financial Statement Analysis module may receive more than a strong Equity module even though both share a 10-15% range. This is a planning illustration only; individual preparation needs differ and the weights do not specify a required number of study hours.

Revisit the plan after fresh mixed questions. If a topic improves, maintain it with spaced review and redirect some time to another weak area. If a topic remains weak despite repeated reading, change the study action: use worked examples, explain the model from memory, or solve smaller steps before returning to a full vignette. Hours spent are not the outcome; reliable retrieval and reasoning are.

The table and year alignment follow CFA Institute’s 2026 Level II exam guide and curriculum page. Use the official curriculum outline and learning outcome statements for the year you are registered to sit.