Wood Mackenzie reviews

3.0

Be the first to recommend this company

(584 total reviews)
avatar

Jason Liu

Not enough data to show CEO approval

100% positive business outlook

Wood Mackenzie has an employee rating of 3.0 out of 5 stars, based on 584 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have an average working experience there. The Wood Mackenzie employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Management & Beratung industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

584 reviews
5.0
Jan 26, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Best in class analysis - delivered via research and consulting businesses - and clients need quality and *connected* analysis even more than ever before. (It feels a little trite to quote The Book, but its true and I'm glad we have finally taken this perspective to market) Thoughtful, caring colleagues. I've been through too many natural disasters during my time in Houston, and there are always Woodmackers who rally around to support. Lastly, there are few other companies where the Analyst is truly celebrated. In industry, an analyst is just the low rung on the totem pole until you get to be a negotiator or into business development. Here, we have a Chairman and Chief Analyst -- we celebrate our analysis!!

Cons

Sometimes it feels like there are a lot of people that are removed from our core purpose in life: delivering thoughtful data and analysis to our customers. There were always people who made the business run, but now it seems like some of these support functions have a lot of management layers.

avatar
Wood Mackenzie Response
3mo
Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and showed the world how highly we value our analysis! Thank you for your commentary on the structure of the business too. We will feed that back internally. We are really grateful for your insight and all that you do for WoodMac!
2.0
Jan 24, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Hybrid working, generally good colleagues across the globe, interesting work.

Cons

I'm writing this after reading WM's response to a recent review. The pattern is both familiar and worth highlighting. When the reviewer raised specific issues like workload, compensation, leadership clarity, the response followed a script all us employees are now intimately familiar with: acknowledge vaguely, reframe legitimate problems as "perception" or communication failures, then punt the person through a bureaucratic maze. The WM responder to this particular review opened with self-congratulation about how "unlike many companies, we do respond to each one," and how they've "invested in quarterly surveys" and provide monthly overviews of Glassdoor feedback to leadership. They note WM's quarterly surveys and Glassdoor reviews provide "more regular pulse checks - even if sometimes it spotlights more work to do." Translation: WM collects more feedback than other companies, and even though that reveals more problems for us to deal with, we soldier on. Seriously???These aren't achievements. They're the minimum functions of a competent HR operation. Responding and collecting more data isn't the accomplishment. What you do with what you hear is what matters. Then came the condescension, something else we are very familiar with from our UK leadership. The reviewer called out that company responses sound AI-generated. The reply? "Try not to be too cynical..." Treating the problem as the reviewer's attitude rather than addressing the substance of what they raised. Read through the other WM responses and decide for yourself if any of it sounds genuine. The offered solution at the end: the ever present, go talk to your line manager, your HRBP and now the Head of ESG?? Someone raised concerns publicly, presumably because normal channels failed, and the answer is to add a third person to the escalation chain. How does that help? Finally, they recast workload and compensation concerns as "perception of increased expectations and workload." Not actual problems to solve, but messaging failures on their part... How a company responds to public critique says plenty...

avatar
Wood Mackenzie Response
4mo
Thank you for laying this out clearly. Given you’ve highlighted areas where our external responses aren’t landing as they should, I’ll respond directly. You’re right that responding to reviews or running surveys isn’t the same as acting on what people are telling us. If some responses have sounded formulaic, that’s something we can improve. I’ll do my part to make our replies more straightforward, and I will make sure other colleagues who respond here will do the same. We’ll also focus on being clearer about what’s happening internally. One example: since moving to quarterly surveys, each function and segment has been working to communicate more directly with their teams because clarity was a repeated theme in feedback. We can’t commit to delivering every change people request, but we can commit to listening, feeding it into our decision‑making, and being clearer about what we are and aren’t able to do. On Glassdoor specifically: the purpose of these replies is to acknowledge concerns publicly, point people toward the parts of the business that maybe able to help, and allow us to ingather feedback to share. We do share monthly overviews with leadership so trends and issues aren’t missed and with the intention that the feedback helps drive change. On workload and remuneration: these topics always involve a mix of reality and perception (an example: someone may think that they are not paid at market level when analysis would say they are. To be clear: I'm absolutely not saying that is the case with any reviewer here just using an example where someone has a perception that differs from the reality in terms of pay). As you note, these aren't just comms issues but concerns that team-mates feel very genuinely. We continue to raise them internally when they’re raised here. A recent concrete step on workload: the latest line manager briefing included guidance on managing for wellness which gave a managers a range of options to help their teams and team-mates. It’s a starting point, not a full solution, but it’s one immediate action taken because of recurring workload concerns. On escalation routes: your point is fair — sometimes people will have already raised issues and haven’t seen progress at the pace they expect. That said, people sometimes come to Glassdoor first. Given that we cannot know if someone has raised concerns already, and while I understand and take on board the criticism, I do think it’s right to point to the internal routes in case they haven’t been used. On surveys and feedback channels: agreed — they’re tools, not achievements. Their value depends on visible outcomes. Where that connection isn’t clear, we can do more to communicate decisions and progress in a more direct way. Thank you again for the candid review.
5.0
Jan 21, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The work is great, divese and challenging. Always something new to learn. Work life balance and salary is good.

Cons

Vision is not very well defined, need to improve there.

avatar
Wood Mackenzie Response
4mo
Thank you for kind feedback. It's great you've had such a positive experience at WoodMac and thank you for all you do for us. It is really pleasing to note our work-life balance - something that we aim to ensure for all WoodMackers. Your comments on vision are noted and we'll feed that back. We've got plans about this already to make sure strategy and OKRs are really clearly communicated and everyone in the business is clear on our direction of travel! Thank you again
Viewing 25 - 27 of 584 Reviews

Glassdoor has 1,016 Wood Mackenzie reviews submitted anonymously by Wood Mackenzie employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Wood Mackenzie is right for you.