CPA BAR Pass Rates and Difficulty

Recent BAR pass rates

AICPA publishes candidate pass rates by quarter. For BAR, the 2025 quarterly rates were 37.64% in Q1, 47.26% in Q2, 39.46% in Q3 and 39.71% in Q4. The full-year cumulative rate was 41.94%. In 2026, the Q1 rate was 41.30%, the Q2 rate was 45.62%, and the cumulative rate through Q2 was 43.64%.

AICPA uses the same passing standard across administrations and scales scores so they are comparable across forms. The organization says higher rates reflect better candidate preparation, not an easier exam. Candidate groups also differ in education, work experience, preparation and which Discipline they select.

Why BAR can feel difficult

The section combines three areas that call for different methods. Business Analysis includes interpreting information and making decisions from financial or operating data. Technical Accounting and Reporting requires precise knowledge of selected standards. State and Local Governments uses a reporting framework that may be new to candidates who have studied only commercial entities.

A candidate can be comfortable with financial statements yet struggle with management accounting or cost behavior. Someone who knows governmental concepts may still need extensive work with advanced reporting. The broad structure makes it important to diagnose each Area rather than use a single “accounting strength” label.

BAR also gives TBSs half of the score weight. Simulations may require candidates to extract relevant evidence from exhibits, carry calculations through several fields and use the correct accounting perspective. Short recall quizzes do not fully rehearse that kind of work.

The section is four hours with only 50 MCQs and 7 TBSs. A smaller number of questions does not make the exam simple. A simulation may contain multiple requests and a larger set of evidence than one MCQ. Pacing and completeness matter along with technical accuracy.

Pass rates are not an individual forecast

A 43.64% cumulative rate does not mean that any one candidate has a 43.64% chance of passing. The published rate is a group outcome across candidates and test forms. It does not include your specific preparation, strengths, practice quality or exam-day conditions.

Nor does a rate below another section’s rate prove that BAR is objectively harder for every candidate. A candidate’s background matters. A financial reporting professional may find technical topics familiar but need to learn business analysis. An individual who recently completed a finance or accounting course may still need practice applying the rules to simulations.

Use pass rates as broad context only. They can show that many candidates do not pass on an attempt and that deliberate preparation is useful. They cannot set your study target or tell you which subject needs more time.

Assess your readiness from practice

Build a baseline from the current blueprint rather than a single timed score. Use fresh questions from each area. Record accuracy, confidence, elapsed time and error type. For a simulation, note whether you used the right framework and completed every requested field.

1. Review the three blueprint areas and list unfamiliar groups.
2. Take mixed MCQ practice without notes and classify each error.
3. Complete at least one simulation with multiple exhibits.
4. Repeat with fresh examples after targeted review.
5. Use a full timed mock or equivalent session to examine pacing.

Look for a trend across several sessions. A high score on an easy or familiar set is weak evidence if you cannot explain the reasoning. A lower result can be useful if it reveals a specific gap you can repair. Provider readiness indicators are internal measures, not AICPA scaled scores.

AICPA reported 41.94% for 2025 and 43.64% cumulatively through Q2 2026.

Pass rates alone do not measure inherent difficulty. Candidate groups and preparation backgrounds differ.

No. Use your own blueprint-aligned practice results and timing to assess readiness.

What changes from one quarterly rate to another

A quarterly rate is the number of passing outcomes divided by the number of reported candidates for that section and period. It summarizes a group. The reported cumulative rate combines the applicable results in the year to date, so it is not an average of quarterly percentages. Candidate volumes differ between quarters, and the cumulative figure is weighted by those volumes.

Small changes between quarters should not be read as proof that a blueprint became easier or that one sitting was unusually fair. The published table does not adjust each candidate’s preparation history, coursework, retake status or experience. It also does not tell an individual whether their own testing appointment will contain topics they find familiar.

When comparing BAR with another Discipline, remember that each section attracts a different candidate group. People choose a Discipline for different reasons, including their education, work interests and preparation resources. A pass-rate gap therefore describes outcomes under the published conditions; it does not isolate the section’s intrinsic difficulty.

Where candidates commonly spend effort

Business Analysis asks candidates to interpret information and apply analytical methods. Practice should include selecting relevant data, interpreting the result and explaining why a conclusion follows. Memorizing formulas without deciding which one fits a problem leaves a gap. On a case, first identify the requested decision, then locate the evidence and check units, periods and assumptions before calculating.

Technical Accounting and Reporting can be difficult because a question may combine a familiar transaction with an unfamiliar detail. Candidates need to identify the governing accounting issue, determine the applicable treatment and apply it consistently. Build comparison notes for concepts that are easy to confuse, then solve examples where the facts change. The goal is to recognize the decision rule, not the wording of a practice answer.

State and Local Governments introduces a reporting environment with distinct funds, measurement focus and basis of accounting. A candidate who understands commercial financial statements may still need to learn why governmental fund statements and government-wide statements differ and how information is reconciled. Practise identifying the entity and statement before selecting a treatment; using a commercial-entity assumption can derail an otherwise sound calculation.

TBSs add an information-management demand. A simulation can present several exhibits and several response fields, so reading everything linearly may waste time. Scan the requirements first, map each requested output to relevant exhibits, complete the tractable parts and return to uncertain calculations. This approach protects points in fields you can solve while you work through the harder portion.

Make a targeted plan after a difficult attempt

After a failed attempt, avoid treating the overall result as evidence that every subject needs to be relearned. Begin with the Candidate Performance Report if one is provided, your contemporaneous notes and the question log from the final weeks. Look for a pattern that appears in more than one source. One isolated surprise is less useful than recurring difficulty with a particular reasoning step.

If knowledge is the issue, return to the relevant concept and explain it in plain language before answering more questions. If execution is the issue, keep the content but change the process: underline the requested output, list the required inputs, show intermediate calculations or reserve time to check every field. If pacing is the issue, practise a time budget and a deliberate move-on point.

Use a short cycle: study a defined gap, practise with fresh material, review every wrong and uncertain answer, then revisit it later without notes. A large block of repeated questions may feel productive while concealing recognition effects. Spacing and varied contexts are better evidence that the rule is available when the exam does not announce the topic.

For the retake calendar, account for the Discipline window. BAR is available only in the first month of each calendar quarter. A plan that finishes after that month may require waiting for the next window, so check the authorization period and appointment availability before choosing a target. Logistics do not measure readiness, but they shape the time available to prepare.

Compare difficulty with your own profile

A useful comparison is not “BAR is harder than every other section” but “which parts of BAR demand the most work for me?” Read the blueprint, attempt representative new questions and identify the point where your reasoning breaks. A candidate who can explain a rule but struggles to select evidence needs a different intervention from one who has never learned the rule.

When a topic feels difficult, make the difficulty concrete. Is the terminology unfamiliar? Are two accounting treatments easy to confuse? Do you understand a calculation but lose track of periods or units? Does a long case make you read exhibits without knowing what output is required? Naming the obstacle makes a study block actionable and allows you to see whether it is improving.

Keep the same standard for apparent strengths. Familiarity with a course chapter or workplace task can create confidence that disappears when the question combines topics or uses an unfamiliar entity. Include strong areas in mixed practice so that you check transfer, while directing most extra review toward repeated errors. This is a better personal difficulty measure than comparing quarterly rates.