Placements

IMI Delhi placements: read the 2023–25 report by programme

IMI Delhi’s latest opened final-placement report for the 2023–25 batch is an institutional cohort report. It shows a headline average CTC of ₹17.91 lakh per annum, a median of ₹16.61 lakh, and a highest reported CTC of ₹40.31 lakh. Those three measures describe different points in the reported distribution. The highest package is a top outcome, not a likely salary; the average can be pulled upward by high offers; and the median is the midpoint of the reported set. None should be read as a guaranteed salary for a new applicant or as a confirmed result for the 2027–29 intake.

The report also separates its three two-year programmes: PGDM, PGDM (Human Resource Management), and PGDM (Banking & Financial Services). Their results differ, so an applicant should start with the programme they intend to join rather than using the overall figure alone. The official report labels salary figures in lakhs per annum (LPA, INR). It gives batch strength by programme, but does not state in the opened report how many students were eligible for placements, participated, received an offer, or were included in each salary calculation. That limits what can be inferred about placement rate and cohort coverage.

2023–25 final-placement figures by programme

The report’s batch-strength figures add to 412 students across the three programme groups. They are the stated batch sizes, not a placement denominator. The published report does not say that all 412 students sought placement through the same process, nor does it identify how many students were placed or opted out. Do not divide an offer count from another source by 412 or describe these figures as a 100% placement rate without a matching denominator and definition.

The programme comparison is more informative than the headline maximum. The PGDM (B&FS) group has the highest listed average and median in this report, but that is a result for that programme and this batch. It does not establish that every finance-oriented student will receive a similar offer, that the same ranking among programmes will hold in another year, or that a candidate can switch programmes and retain the result. PGDM and PGDM (HRM) each have their own distributions and should be evaluated against the applicant’s intended field and profile.

What the upper salary bands show

IMI also publishes average CTC figures for the top 10%, top 25%, and top 50% of each programme group. These values help show how the upper portions of each group compare, but they are not a percentile salary promise to an individual student. In the report, the figures are:

The row labels matter: these are averages for selected portions of the reported programme group. They do not mean that the top 10% threshold itself is ₹26.18 lakh, for example, and they do not give the salary of the median student in that subgroup. The report does not define the precise selection denominator for each band in the extracted chart, so use the figures as the institute’s reported top-band averages, not as a substitute for a full salary distribution.

The top-band figures also should not be compared directly with the overall median as though both were the same statistic. A candidate comparing the three programmes can use them to see that IMI reports higher upper-band averages for B&FS in this batch, while keeping the broader programme median, batch scope, and personal profile in view. Ask the institute for the calculation basis if a percentile-band figure is central to your decision.

Sector averages and the work represented

The 2023–25 report gives average CTC by sector grouping. Its listed values are ₹19.61 LPA for Banking, Financial Services and Insurance; ₹16.65 LPA for Consulting/EdTech; ₹17.53 LPA for E-Commerce/FMCD/FMCG/Healthcare; ₹16.13 LPA for IT/ITES/Telecom; and ₹19.18 LPA for Manufacturing/Conglomerate. These are sector-level averages in the report, not separate programme guarantees. The report does not publish the number of students or offers behind each sector average in the opened pages, so the figures cannot show how common each outcome was.

Roles and recruiter examples

The role list provides more context than a recruiter logo alone. Examples in the report include Analyst, Business Development Manager, Category Management, Consultant, Financial Analyst, Investment Fund Analyst, IT Consulting, Pre-Sales Consultant, Treasury Services Analyst, HR Consultant, and Human Resources Trainee. The mix spans finance, consulting, technology, marketing, general management, and human resources. These are examples of roles reported for the batch, not a commitment that the same vacancies will recur or that each programme has identical access to them.

The report groups recruiters by sector. Examples shown include American Express, ANZ, Bank of America, BNY, ICICI Bank, JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo in the banking and financial-services group; Deloitte, EY, KPMG, Mercer and PwC in Consulting/EdTech; and Accenture, Capgemini, Cisco, Cognizant, Infosys and Wipro in IT/ITES/Telecom. Other named employers span consumer businesses, manufacturing, healthcare, e-commerce and real estate. The list is evidence that those organisations appear in the report’s recruiter section for the 2023–25 batch; it is not a forecast of a future recruiter list, offer count, or individual hiring probability.

Separate final placements from the summer internship

IMI lists a separate SIP report page for summer internship placement reports. Those refer to different stages: the SIP is associated with the internship after the first academic year, while final placements concern employment after programme completion. An internship stipend or role should not be combined with a final CTC figure, and a SIP report should not be used as proof of final-placement outcomes. The report directory lists a 2023–25 SIP report, but the figures summarized here come from the final-placement report for the same batch.

For a fair comparison, check the report title and batch first, then confirm whether a number is a stipend, fixed salary, total CTC, average, median, highest, or a sector/programme subgroup value. If another school reports only its highest package, compare it with IMI’s highest figure rather than with IMI’s median. If another page reports an overall average, make sure its cohort and programme coverage are reasonably comparable.

Assistance conditions and what the report cannot answer

IMI’s admission page describes placement assistance as category-dependent. It says self-sponsored candidates receive assistance on a best-effort basis and identifies company-sponsored applicants and foreign nationals as ineligible for that placement assistance. This is a separate issue from the salary statistics: being included in a historic batch report does not prove that every applicant category receives the same placement-cell support in a later cycle. Applicants should confirm the current rule that applies to their route and sponsorship status.

The opened 2023–25 final-placement report gives headline and programme-level CTC measures, top-band averages, sector averages, roles, recruiter names, and batch strength. It does not provide enough information in the opened pages to establish a placement percentage, the number of placed students, the number who opted out, the number of offers per student, or a programme-wise full salary distribution. It also does not establish a 2027–29 salary outcome. Those gaps should stay visible rather than be filled from a third-party summary or a different cohort.

How to use the figures in a decision

Begin with the correct programme and the 2023–25 median rather than the single highest result. Then look at the average and top-band values to understand the spread that the institute chose to publish. Use sector figures only if the listed sector grouping aligns with your target role, and treat recruiter names as historical participants rather than promises. For B&FS and HRM, use the programme-specific row; do not substitute the overall ₹17.91 lakh average for the programme median.

Next, ask for the current placement brochure and the denominator behind each rate or salary figure you rely on. Useful questions include: how many students were eligible and actively seeking placement; how many received at least one offer; whether international or sponsored students were included; whether figures are fixed pay or total CTC; how variable pay, joining bonuses and benefits are counted; how the top-band groups were formed; and whether programme-level figures use the same reporting period. Ask which assistance rules apply to your applicant category and what support is available if you already have an employer sponsor.

Finally, model affordability using your own offer terms, not a package headline. A CTC is not take-home pay and does not account for tax, variable compensation, location, living costs, loan interest or the time needed to repay a loan. Compare the course cost, realistic target roles, likely location and your prior experience with the published outcomes. The 2023–25 report is useful evidence about one completed cohort; it is not an individual return-on-investment guarantee.