Accounting geek question - ACCA or ACA?

[alex_tank]

Accounting geek question - ACCA or ACA? *updated 12/08*

From what I gather this forum seems to be full of well educated professional types, this is bound to be relevent to someone who might be able to help me or have some input please.

In February I'll be finished with my AAT studies (fingers crossed). I'm not completely sure what the differences between the ACA or ACCA are, and I don't care which is harder I just want to do the one that will have most use to me.

From what I understand the ACA is slightly more difficult but only very useful if you want to do auditing work, it is less globally recognised than the ACCA but held in higher regard in most places? Although I may be totally wrong.

Someone here must have done one or the other. How did you find it and which would you recommend?

/accounting geek

edit *updated* I know this is a lot but this thread's had some very helpful people compared to student/accounting forums I've tried.
from post #88

Extending this accounting thread a bit sorry. Thinking out loud a bit.

I think I'll talk to Reed or another good agency sometime soon. I like the tax units, and I still don't really know what I'm aiming for.

Studying...

AAT - Will finish by February 2011 (fingers crossed), when I start the last NVQ I want to study the optional units, "Personal Tax" and "Business Tax". I find the tax modules quite interestering.

I'll have the option to study...

ACCA - for two years, I can also get the Oxford Brookes degree. I still think this isn't quite so highly regarded as the ACA as a lot of people have pointed out (people in this thread seem to lean more towards ACA), but I also get the impression that with some experience and good work under your belt nobody really cares too much.

ACA - for three years. I may be misinformed but I've read somewhere you can only take the final exams on the third year of your training contract. This is another problem for me as my current role is completely unrelated to finance or accounting, I'm not sure I could get such a job with only two thirds of an NVQ and no relevant experience or University education.

CIMA - I know least about, I'm going to read up on some more. From what I understand it focuses slightly less on audit, is slightly more restricted than the others but is very good for management accounting. Not so good for practice or auditing but it still covers this.​

 

[Participant]

What job do you want to do? I'm CIMA but have come across (so to speak) plenty of both. Personally I rate ACA higher and from speaking to various FDs about it, they tend to desire ACA more than ACCA when creating job roles.

It really depends on where you want to work and what field you want to enter, but in Europe I'd say that ACA was more prestigious.

The big banks and the big four support it more widely, and to do it your firm has to be a registered provider whereas I don't think they do with ACCA.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Both are good, but I think Robbie is right to say that ACA is a bit more highly respected in these parts.

What job are you after?

 

[Castiel]

My wife who is IAECW (ACA) says if you wish to work in Practice then the ACA, if you wish to work in Industry then ACCA. Other than the need to do a slighty different exam to sign off accounts she days they are more or less the same.

 

[[TW]Fox]

ACA is the epitome of accounting, IMHO.

 

[csmager]

Can. Worms. Everywhere.

Both will argue theirs is best. For what it's worth, the Big 4 mainly do CA and ACA (that's ICAS and ICAEW) - probably more ICAS than ICAEW at the moment, but I'm not entirely sure why.

I'd probably agree with the concensus above that ACA/CA is 'better regarded', but there probably isn't a huge amount in it in terms of actual content anymore.

 

[mangobreeder]

ACA is the epitome of accounting, IMHO.

u would not go that far

I'd probably agree with the concensus above that ACA/CA is 'better regarded', but there probably isn't a huge amount in it in terms of actual content anymore.

spot on

virtually no difference between the two, if you can get on a traditional ACA training program then do it, if not goto BBP and do ACCA. in the long run no difference.

with all other factors an employer will have to be to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to pick a ACA, over a ACCA student

Whether or not you get a job is factored in way before they look at your qualification.

 

[mollymoo]

Of course it depends on the route you want to take, management, financial or specialise in tax. You could do ACCA, CIMA which are both good quals however CTA ,ACA although difficult are well worth getting should you want to earn good money.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Looking around the company I work for, I would say that ACA on the surface delivers better career prospects. This however may be more to do with the fact that the individuals who are ACA qualified have a strong university background in finance.

Put it this way, you have absolutely nothing to lose if you choose ACA over ACCA, however the reverse may not necessarily be true.

 

[Participant]

Companies like Unilever and GSK push CIMA over ACA for their financial managers, at least at the graduate recruitment stage.

Companies like Deloitte and KPGM push ACA over everything else.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That would be because CIMA is for Management Accounting rather than Practice Accounting.

I assume you mean KPMG?

 

[goldilocks]

My brother gets his final AAT results on Monday
The company he works works for (apprentice) are paying him to go on to ACCA
Reading the above (and the seemed preference to ACA) why would they be pushing the ACCA route for him?

 

[kozan]

In general, I would say the higher paying jobs go to ACAs over ACCAs. Banks in particular heavily recruit newly qualified ACAs that have trained in practice. Also, if you want to stay long term in practice and work towards partner, ACA is the qualification to go for.

If you are pretty sure you want to be a management accountant and work in industry, then I don't think it would make much difference which qualification you have. However, if you don't know what you want to do, or if you what you want to do is specialist (e.g. tax) then go for the ACA.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Reading the above (and the seemed preference to ACA) why would they be pushing the ACCA route for him?

Because its cheaper and he's less likely to run off to a better paid job after the training.

 

[goldilocks]

Because its cheaper and he's less likely to run off to a better paid job after the training.

If your answer is serious (I know nothing about accounting) would he be better, long term, taking his AAT to another company and going for ACA?
What is the difference in cost? And is there really such a huge difference in prospects?
Any other AATs here? What sort of salary should he be expecting on passing his exams?

Edit: sorry to borrow your thread OP!

 

[weringo]

I've been looking into the same thing as I'll be starting my qualifications next year when I finish uni, I've found that ACA is generally held in slightly higher regard than ACCA, but ACCA is better recognised internationally.

 

[Castiel]

To study the ACA you must work for a Practice, whereas the ACCA can be provided anywhere. The difference between the two has been mooted by the addition of the extra exam at the end of the ACCA to enable you to sign off accounts, this wasn't the case previously.

ACA has been losing ground and the even the big four are going over to the ACCA.

PriceWaterHouseCooper where I gained my ACA now does the ACCA/ACA equally. I would not recommend the CIMA route unless you simply wish to be a management accountant. Either of the other two depending on the options available to you would be my recommendation.

KPMG are also offering ACA/ACCA equally and this seems to be the general concensus.

I am a ACA qualified Group Global Treasurer for a multinational company.

Susie
Castiel's Wife.

 

[Castiel]

Because its cheaper and he's less likely to run off to a better paid job after the training.

The difference in projected earnings is negligible. The decision the person asking the question makes will depend entirely on whether he/she works in a Practice or not. Either way the ACCA or the ACA are regarded equally, once the ACA was the prefered route but that is no longer the case.


Susie
Castiel's Wife

 

[[TW]Fox]

Interesting. I still really want to do this, really, I ought to get myself in gear and start finding out the best way in.

 

[Castiel]

If your answer is serious (I know nothing about accounting) would he be better, long term, taking his AAT to another company and going for ACA?
What is the difference in cost? And is there really such a huge difference in prospects?
Any other AATs here? What sort of salary should he be expecting on passing his exams?

Edit: sorry to borrow your thread OP!

Unless he works for a Accountancy Practice or an Authorised ICAEW training employer (see Practice) then moving his AAT provider will not help him.

Forget the ACA/ACCA fanboys, my wife is very knowledgable on this and if she says there is no real difference then there is not.