Key to SQE Success? Decoding Provider Pass Rate Data

What I Discovered Analysing SQE Pass Rates Across “Top” Providers

Updated November 2025

Today I’d like to discuss the pass rates of the major SQE course providers.

Like many candidates, I’ve had a few nagging questions knocking around in my brain, namely:

Whose training really translates into passing grades? and

Is it possible to say, with any certainty, who the “best” providers are?

Missing Data: Why Finding a Provider’s True SQE Pass Rate is Currently So Hard

As you probably know, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) said it would publish SQE pass rates by training provider back when the SQE launched in late 2021. The regulator said it would start releasing pass stats at the end of 2023, as part of its commitment to help students and to foster a “healthy” SQE market.  However, as of summer 2025, the SRA still hasn’t released any provider pass rate stats – citing “unexpected data issues” as the reason for the hold up. 

The Legal Services Board (LSB), the independent body that oversees regulators like the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, recently said the following about the ongoing data delay:

“…we are concerned about the SRA’s failure to publish provider pass-rate data for SQE training providers, as well as other concerns about SQE including affordability, design and quality. The SRA’s failure to publish provider pass-rate data, despite it making a commitment to do so, means that SQE candidates do not have all the information they need to make informed choices. We expect the SRA to remedy this situation as soon as possible and by no later than autumn of 2025.” 

Quote from the LSB Regulatory Performance Assessment of March 2025.

It remains to be seen whether or not the SRA will be able to meet the autumn deadline, especially as its self-imposed deadlines from 2023 – and then 2024 – have come and gone.

So in the interim, what are we left with? 

In the absence of the regulator sharing any provider pass rate data directly (or mandating that providers share this themselves) we’re left with SQE training providers who are free to self-report their “success stats” (or not) in any way they’d like. 

This is what they are choosing to tell us.

Comparing SQE Providers’ Pass Rate Claims

I’ve looked at the big players in the SQE training space and at what they are sharing publicly about the success of their SQE students. Each of the institutions below currently provide what I would call full prep courses – that is extensive instruction, which is meant to fully prepare a candidate to sit and pass SQE1 or 2. These providers tend to have many students, year after year, and provide them with all necessary books, instruction, mocks and more.

I’ve placed each into one of three groups: 1. The Stats Shy, 2. The Cherry Pickers and 3. Those Providing Possibly Misleading Information – based on information available on their websites (as of early November 2025).

(i.e. The Stats Shy)

SQE Training Provider
FQPS Academy
Future Solicitor
The City Law School
The College of Legal Practice (though it does make certain SQE-success claims. i.e. “you have the best chance of passing the SQE with us”. See Image A below)
The Law Training Centre
And many others

As far as I am aware, none of the above have publicly released any information about their SQE pass percentages.  

I’m not sure of the reasons for this.  I believe some institutions have said that they are essentially waiting on the SRA to publish their pass rates as they don’t know what these are (possibly because they have difficulty collecting the information themselves).

I don’t find such reasons to be terribly convincing.  The SQE commenced 4 full years ago.  Surely these providers must have some information on how their students perform.  Shouldn’t they want this data?  Especially for their own purposes? 

Think of any goods or services you’ve purchased in the past 5 or so years.  I’m willing to bet that, as soon as a seller sent its “deliverables” to you, it immediately sent you a text or email, asking you to provide feedback or a review (maybe both).  Every sensible, modern business does this: one, because it is a way to collect customer testimonials (which provide critical social proof); and two, because it is a way to better understand, fix and improve their products or services.  A business should always want to know (and I would argue needs to know) what its customers are thinking and, critically, how useful customers found its goods or services.  How can an SQE provider ever hope to improve its courses and teaching methods, if they have no idea how well they are working to begin with?

(i.e. The Cherry Pickers)

SQE Training Provider	SQE1 Pass Rate Claim*	The Caveat(s)*	SQE2 Pass Rate Claim**	The Caveat(s)**
The QLTS School	94% Pass Rate	For candidates that reported their results and completed 25+ SQE1 mock tests	Stellar SQE2 Pass Rates, thanks to our experience with the OSCE	No data provided (website indicates that “detailed SQE2 pass rate data” coming soon)
The University of Law	75% Pass Rate	% passing January 2025 SQE1 their first time; % based on 2000+ student responses	89% Pass Rate	% passing October 2024 SQE2; based on student responses
Barbri	62% Pass Rate	For those that completed at least 90% of [Barbri] course; % reflects July 2025 only	83% Pass Rate	% reflects April 2025 only
Academy of Smart Lawyers (fka. OSCEsmart)	Not shared	N/A	90%+ Average Pass Rate from QLTS OSCE in 2018 to SQE2 in 2024	None provided (though claim includes pre-SQE data)

Here are SQE providers that do make some pass rate info public. But what does the information they’ve shared tell us about who has the best average SQE pass rates?

Well, effectively nothing.

As they’re all using different metrics, it is impossible to compare them. Even looking at each institution’s “pass rate” individually doesn’t really tell you anything, because they’ve not provided any crucial context.  For example:

I’m not sure that one can conclude much of anything from the cherry-picked stats above (besides the fact that 1: they likely portray each provider in the absolutely most favourable light and 2. the provider’s true pass rates probably fall short of the percentages shared above). 

Now, I should say here that there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking – and that what these providers have done is not necessarily “bad”.  As the SRA does not mandate pass rate disclosures – provided their claims are clear, fair and not misleading – these providers can claim what they’d like.  Still, I do think it’s telling that – when not compelled – none of the providers above will give it to us straight.  “Straight” meaning: publicly share their actual mean (i.e. X out of our X000 students have passed SQE1/2 between 2021 and 2025).  

When they won’t do this we’re left to conclude that either:

1. they are not meeting the national average passing rates for students taking SQE1 and 2; 
2. their percentage of passing students is the same as the SQE1 and 2 national averages;
3. they are surpassing the SQE1/2 national passing averages, but not by margins that would seem to justify their (often high) tuition fees; or
4. they are significantly exceeding the SQE1/2 national passing averages but, for reasons unknown, do not want to reveal what their average passing rates really are.

Thoughts on the SQE Pass Rate Claims Made by the QLTS School

I must confess that I laughed – more than once – when I reviewed QLTS’ self-reported SQE1 “pass rates” (the school has not yet shared any information on SQE2).

The first time was when I saw their chosen “success” metric: completion of mock exams – (Fine. This seems fair enough. Practice makes perfect…etc, etc.) – and the fact that their 94% pass rate is contingent upon one completing upwards of 25 (25!) mock exams.

On seeing this for the first time I was left wondering:

Is that not, like, truly a tonne of mocks? 

Are these full 360-question mocks? 

How many students actually manage to complete this all-important 25+ test threshold? (1? 2? 1000?)

And, critically, does this stat speak to the good quality of the QLTS School’s mocks? Or does it perhaps undermine claims of quality? (more on this below)

I also had to chuckle when I saw the school refer to their pass rate revelation as “transparent”. 

This is anything but transparent, as the school has not provided crucial context (that is, answered any of the questions posed above).  Furthermore, The QLTS School has been in the “solicitor qualification / Kaplan examination” game for a very long time (~15 years according to its website).  They are called the QLTS School, because they formerly provided training for the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) – an examination for foreign-qualified lawyers, that ran from approximately 2012-22 and was quite similar to the SQE.  (As far as I know, The QLTS School and BPP were, for quite a long time, the only places someone could go to get training for the exam.  There was no one else until, in its later years, players like Barbri and the Academy of Smart Lawyers (formerly OSCESmart) began to provide some QLTS training).  Their long track record means that The QLTS School, in particular, ought to have lots, and lots, of pass rate data.  If anyone knows how well their training methods do/do not work it should be this school.

Lastly, while looking at the information QLTS has shared in support of its claim that  “25+ tests = SQE1 success” I noticed that they’ve provided conflicting information.

You’ll notice that, in Image D above, the text and the graph convey different information.  The paragraph on the left says that candidates have a pass rate of 94% “after completing 26 mock tests”.  The graph on the right seems to suggest that completing 26 mocks leads to an 80% pass rate, and completion of 28 mocks to a pass rate of 91%. (So perhaps a person needs to complete closer to 30 mocks to get that “94% pass” piece of mind?)

I also found it interesting that, according to the graph, completion of 4 QLTS School mocks corresponds to a 58% pass rate, 10 mocks to 62% pass rate and 17(!) mocks to 64%.  Assuming that these are full mocks, this means that students who paid hundreds (or thousands) of pounds for training/materials, and completed 1440 to 6120 of QLTS’ exam-style questions, are achieving pass rates that may be only 5 to 11% above the historic SQE1 pass rate.

Make of this what you will.

Thoughts on the SQE Pass Rate Claims Made by the University of Law

In many ways the claims made by The University of Law are a cut above the rest. They’re clear, they’re compliant, and they provide a bit of context which is actually useful (i.e. letting us know about their sample size – at least for SQE1).

However, I wish ULaw (and all course providers) would share their pass rates for all their students. That is, include people who are sitting the SQE a second, or third, time – because A LOT of people have to take the SQE more than once! (Approximately one out of every two people – a full 50(ish) percent of candidates – will not pass at least one part of SQE1.  Resitters are a sizeable percentage of the exam sitting population!)

Resitters may make up a notable portion of ULaw’s candidate base as well, though we can’t know for sure – because the university has chosen not to tell us.

Thoughts on the SQE Pass Rate Claims Made by Barbri

Like some other providers in this list, Barbri provided training for the QLTS exams, before the SQE came about.  Therefore, Barbri is another firm that one might expect to have substantive data dating back quite a few years.

At the moment, however, the company has chosen to reveal only the following information:

The pass rates Barbri is sharing above are for 2025 sittings of either SQE 1 or 2.  And, in the case of SQE1, Barbri has qualified it’s pass claim further – stating that this pass % was attained only when students completed 90% of Barbri’s SQE1 course.

This naturally leaves one with a few questions. Namely: 

What is so special about completing 90% of the course material? 

How many students reached this critical 90% completion rate? (and how did those who completed, say, 88% of the course fair?

Why is completion of Barbri’s course critical for students’ SQE1 success, but seemingly less so for SQE2? (the company provides no mention of course completion rates alongside its SQE2 claims)

Thoughts on the SQE Pass Rate Claims Made by the Academy of Smart Lawyers (fka OSCEsmart)

This company formerly provided training to help foreign-qualified lawyers prepare for the second part of the QLTS, i.e. the practical skills portion, called the OSCE (akin to SQE2). Since approximately 2021 they’ve begun providing training for both parts of the SQE.

The company does not seem to share any details about its SQE1 pass rates, but does share a combined OSCE / SQE2 claim on each page of its website as follows:

No small print accompanies this claim, so we are left to assume that this stat reflects the firm’s true historic averages. However, no specific claim is made regarding SQE2 pass rates alone – so we cannot be sure what these are (and whether or not they differ from those achieved for the OSCE).

(i.e. BPP)

SQE Training Provider	SQE1 Pass Rate Claim*	The Caveat(s)*	SQE2 Pass Rate Claim**	The Caveat(s)**
BPP University Law School	83%	None provided	94%	None provided

Thoughts on the SQE Pass Rate Claims Made by BPP

I very nearly put BPP in its own special category titled “PROVIDER ACTUALLY REPORTING MEANINGFUL HISTORICAL DATA.” 

However…

Unlike all the Group 2 providers above, BPP has not qualified its headline stats with any small print.  When I first read said headline I thought “Hey! Here’s one provider that’s actually giving information to us straight!”  Based on the below it looks as though, on average, 83% of all BPP students pass SQE1, and 94% of all BPP students pass SQE2 (excellent averages indeed).

These pass percentages are shared in multiple places on BPP’s website – sometimes with accompanying claims like “[SQE] Pass rates 20% above the national average” (as shown below).

On certain webpages the 83% and 94% stats appear with asterisks (*) beside them but, as far as I could see, these were not attached to any small print and did nothing to qualify the pass rate claims in any way.

As I kept clicking, however, I eventually found this:

And that’s when I became a bit perplexed because, here BPP has introduced caveats – breaking down its pass rate by sitting and indicating that these historic pass rates are for first time SQE sitters only. 

I also noticed that row 1 of Image K above (for January 2025) mirrors exactly what BPP seems to claim are its overall “SQE Pass Rates” (see below).

That’s when I concluded that BPP’s claim of an 83% SQE1 pass rate and 94% SQE2 pass rate, were probably not its true historic averages, but rather the most recent pass rates, of its first time test-takers, for the January 2025 exams only.  

Of course, I may be wrong.  I don’t have access to any of BPP’s passing data (beyond was it’s publicly shared above).  However, we do have the SRA’s historic pass rate stats.  And the only time a “national average” pass rate for SQE1 was 60% (as stated by BPP in images above) was in January 2025 and, even then, this was only for first-time sitters.  The pass rate for first time sitters has never reached 60% before January 2025 (and the highest the overall pass SQE1 pass rate has been ever is 56%)

This is what inclines me to think that BPP’s headline claims (that 83% pass SQE1 pass and 94% pass SQE2) are probably not strictly accurate – and that they should probably be qualified, as they seem likely to mislead.

Conclusion

So what should we make of all this?

Obviously, this is The SQE Self-Study Site (where we’ve always believed that self-study for the SQE is very possible).  That said, this site is not anti-course provider. I recognise there are a number of reasons why candidates would want to take prep courses, and I also recognise the value that preparation courses can provide (question banks, access to tutors, structure, etc.)…

However, I do find it curious that – in an era where pass rate reporting is not mandatory – no SQE providers are inclined to be all that candid. As far as I’m aware, no SQE provider has straightforwardly said “out of our total of X000 students, X00 have passed SQE1 (or 2) during the past 4 years”). Rather, they stay silent – or they provide creative metrics, and make liberal use of fine print, to (presumably) portray themselves in the most favourable light possible.  Again, I don’t think that a SQE provider who does this is necessarily nefarious or bad – but I mention it in support of my view that one should not put too much stock in any provider’s self-disclosed “pass rates” (at least not right now).

I also mention it so that anyone who is self-studying does not feel intimidated – or at an obvious disadvantage – just because they are not at one of these training institutions with the “very impressive” pass rates.  We simply don’t have the data to say that this is the case.

Where to Find More Information on SQE Training Providers and SQE Pass Rates

I’ve previously written all about historic SQE1 Pass Rates and SQE2 Pass Rates – based on information provided from Kaplan SQE and the SRA. We also have a post breaking down how you can best go about choosing a SQE training course (if that’s something you’re looking for).

Lastly, I’d encourage you to check out these videos from SQETV, an excellent, exam-focused YouTube channel (complete with catchy jingle)!

_ _ _

And, as always, I’d love to know your thoughts! Do you think SQE providers are being transparent enough regarding pass rates? What, if anything, should they be compelled to share? Let me know in the comments below!