Average Pass Rates: All Actuarial Preliminary Exams

Pass Rate Overview

Actuarial exam pass rates are notably lower than most professional exams like the CPA (approximately 50%) or the bar exam (approximately 60% to 80% depending on jurisdiction). For actuarial preliminary exams, typical pass rates range from 35% to 55% on any given sitting. These rates mean that failing an exam is a statistically normal outcome, not a sign that someone should abandon the actuarial career. Understanding pass rate data helps candidates set realistic expectations and build study plans that maximize their personal probability of success.

Exam-by-Exam Pass Rate Data

Here is a breakdown of typical pass rates for each preliminary exam based on historical data from the SOA and CAS:

• Exam P (Probability): 42% to 48% average pass rate, with individual sittings occasionally reaching the low 50s or dipping into the high 30s
• Exam FM (Financial Mathematics): 45% to 55% average pass rate, consistently among the highest for any preliminary exam
• Exam SRM (Statistics for Risk Modeling): 48% to 55% average pass rate, though the exam is relatively newer and trends are still stabilizing
• Exam FAM (Fundamentals of Actuarial Mathematics): pass rates vary but generally fall in the 40% to 50% range
• Exam LTAM/ALTAM (Long-Term Actuarial Mathematics): 35% to 45% average pass rate, historically among the lowest for preliminary exams
• CAS Exam MAS-I: 40% to 50% average pass rate
• CAS Exam MAS-II: 35% to 45% average pass rate

These figures represent averages across multiple sittings. Individual exam windows can deviate significantly based on exam difficulty, candidate pool composition, and other factors.

Historical Trends in Pass Rates

Pass rates for actuarial exams have remained remarkably stable over the past two decades, typically staying within a consistent band for each exam. The SOA and CAS use psychometric methods to calibrate exam difficulty across sittings, which helps maintain consistent pass rates over time. When an exam undergoes a major syllabus change, pass rates for the first few sittings of the new format sometimes fluctuate as candidates and study providers adjust to the new content.

One notable trend is that pass rates tend to be slightly higher for sittings with larger candidate pools. This may seem counterintuitive, but larger sittings often correspond to popular exam windows where more study resources and peer support are available. Conversely, off-cycle sittings with smaller pools sometimes produce lower pass rates, possibly because candidates taking exams outside the main windows may be retaking after a failed attempt with compressed preparation time.

What Pass Rates Actually Mean for Individual Candidates

The most important insight about pass rates is that they reflect the performance of all candidates, including those who are significantly underprepared. Surveys and data from study providers consistently show that well-prepared candidates pass at much higher rates than the overall average. Candidates who complete the full curriculum of a major study provider and achieve high scores on practice exams report personal pass rates of 70% to 85%, far above the published averages.

Several factors explain this gap between overall pass rates and well-prepared candidate pass rates:

• Many candidates sit for exams before completing adequate preparation, either due to employer pressure, optimistic self-assessment, or a strategy of gaining exam experience
• Some candidates use free or minimal study resources rather than comprehensive study packages
• International candidates sometimes face language barriers that affect their performance despite strong technical preparation
• Career changers may underestimate the difficulty if they are unfamiliar with actuarial exam culture

The takeaway is that overall pass rates should inform your planning, not your confidence. If you prepare thoroughly, your personal odds are substantially better than the published numbers suggest.

How Preparation Quality Affects Your Personal Pass Probability

Research and candidate surveys point to several preparation factors that strongly correlate with passing. The number of practice problems completed is one of the strongest predictors. Candidates who work through 1,000 or more practice problems for a preliminary exam pass at significantly higher rates than those who rely primarily on reading. The quality of practice also matters: working problems under timed conditions, reviewing mistakes thoroughly, and revisiting weak areas are all associated with higher pass rates.

Study duration is another important factor. Candidates who spread their preparation over 3 to 4 months rather than cramming into a shorter window tend to perform better, likely because spaced repetition improves long-term retention. Using adaptive practice platforms that adjust problem difficulty based on performance helps candidates identify and address weak areas efficiently, which is more productive than working through problems of uniform difficulty.

Finally, taking multiple full-length practice exams under realistic conditions is strongly associated with passing. Candidates who complete at least 3 to 5 full practice exams, timed and without notes, develop better time management skills and reduce exam-day anxiety. The goal is to make the actual exam feel familiar rather than surprising.

First Attempt vs. Retake Pass Rates

First-time pass rates tend to be lower than retake rates for most preliminary exams. This pattern makes sense because first-time candidates are more likely to underestimate the preparation required, while retaking candidates have direct experience with the exam format, content, and their own weak areas. Retakers who make meaningful changes to their study approach, such as switching providers, increasing study hours, or focusing on different topic areas, see the greatest improvement.

However, simply retaking the exam without changing your approach rarely produces a different outcome. The most effective retake strategies involve honest assessment of what went wrong, targeted improvement in weak areas, and often a change in study materials or methods. Candidates who fail by a narrow margin may need only minor adjustments, while those who fail by a wider margin should consider a more fundamental overhaul of their preparation strategy.