CAT Coaching Awards 2025 🏆 | Based on Real Student Ratings | Amazor Talks

Summary

Purpose and methodology

The presenter shares results from a survey about CAT coaching experiences, intended to help future aspirants make more informed choices. A total of 459 CAT aspirants, primarily preparing for CAT 2024, submitted ratings and written feedback about their coaching.

Respondents rated their coaching from 1 to 5 and described their experiences. The presenter says identity evidence—such as phone numbers, CAT admit cards, and fee receipts—was collected to discourage fabricated submissions.

The responses were analyzed using AI models, including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. The presenter says anonymized data would be made available so viewers could review or analyze it themselves.

The presenter cautions that the sample is small compared with the wider CAT aspirant population, so the results may be skewed and should not be treated as definitive judgments about every coaching provider. Feedback for smaller institutes was excluded from comparisons when there were too few responses.

Offline coaching: results vary by centre

The presenter does not give overall ratings to TIME, IMS, or Career Launcher because their centres operate under different management, and results can vary by location.

TIME

• Centres reported positively: Indore; Ambernath (Thane); Surat; Jabalpur’s Bharat Nagar centre; Lucknow’s Mahanagar centre; and Faridabad.
• Centres reported negatively: Ahmedabad; Varanasi; Navi Mumbai; Chandigarh; a location rendered as “Meer” in the subtitles; Kolkata; Nashik; Bangalore; GTB Nagar in North Delhi; and Thiruvananthapuram.

IMS

• Centres reported positively: Varanasi’s Ravindrapuri centre; Vadodara; Ahmedabad; Muzaffarpur; Delhi’s Karkarduma centre; and a Pune centre described as “online” in the subtitles.
• Centres reported negatively: Agra, Bhopal, Nagpur, Ranchi, Chennai, Ghaziabad, and Indore.

Career Launcher

• Centres reported positively: Pune, Dehradun, Jabalpur, Kashipur, and Chandausi.
• Centres reported negatively: Agra; Kolkata’s Salt Lake centre; locations rendered unclearly in the subtitles as “Roller Kera Bhil”; and Bokaro, Rudrapur, and Gwalior.

These lists reflect survey responses, not a comprehensive assessment of every branch.

Faculty most frequently praised

The following lists reflect which teachers respondents mentioned positively; they are not independent assessments of teaching quality.

• Quantitative Ability: Ravi Sir (Rodha); Honey Malhotra Sir (Elites Grid); Udit Saini Sir (MBA Pathshala); Raman Tiwari Sir (Unacademy); and Rahul Batla Sir (MBA Wala).
• VARC: Gajo/Gajjo Sir was most frequently praised, and the presenter recommended his VARC 1000 course. Other names included Amit Rohra Sir, Shahzar Sir (Elites Grid), Karishma Vanwani Ma’am (MBA Pathshala), and a tie between KD Sir (Rodha) and Himanshu Sir (MBA Pathshala).
• DILR: Gaurav Kapoor Sir (Elites Grid) was ranked first and Ravi Sir (Rodha) second. The presenter says there was not enough data to confidently identify a full top-five list. The subtitles do not identify a third-ranked teacher.

Online coaching feedback

CATKing — 21 responses

• Ratings: 14% positive, 48% negative, and 38% neutral.
• Praised: Study materials, dashboard and mock-analysis resources, and Sumit Sir’s VARC teaching and mock-analysis guidance.
• Concerns: Respondents described the curriculum as unstructured, reported irregular faculty and frequent teacher changes, and said some teachers were difficult to approach with doubts. They also cited late or short live classes, reliance on recordings they considered outdated or poor in audio quality, errors and repetition in mock tests, inconsistent mock analysis, and very large batches that limited individual support. Some felt the coaching gave insufficient attention to non-CAT exams and did not deliver as much as its marketing led them to expect.

iQuanta — 25 responses

• Ratings: 16% positive, 40% negative, and 44% neutral.
• Praised: Study materials and resources, the teaching of Raj Kumar Sir and Vikrant Sir, and the application-based classes.
• Concerns: Some students said the application-based approach could leave slower learners behind. Others reported that later-starting batches or crash courses skipped important topics and that faculty changes disrupted their learning. Students also raised concerns about batch management and said foundational teaching could be insufficient for those with weak basics. Some felt the marketing created expectations that their experience did not meet.

MBA Wala / Physics Wallah’s MBA offering — 50 responses

• Ratings: 44% positive, 28% negative, and 28% neutral.
• Praised: Affordability, accessible faculty, revision and doubt-clearing sessions, interactive classes, and a generally structured syllabus.
• Concerns: Students gave mixed or negative feedback about DILR and VARC teaching. They also said the practice material and mock tests were limited in quantity and often easier than the actual CAT, making them less challenging preparation.

Unacademy — 17 responses

• Ratings: 47% positive, 24% negative, and 29% neutral.
• Praised: Teachers including Raman Tiwari Sir and Lokesh Sharma Sir; the option, according to some respondents, to choose teachers; beginner-friendly instruction; and relatively affordable pricing.
• Concerns: Students reported poor-quality or repetitive mocks, incorrect answers or marking, and technical problems with the platform. Some classes ran for four to five hours, which could be difficult for working professionals, while doubt-clearing sessions were described as fewer than expected.

Rodha — 37 responses

• Ratings: 89% positive, with two negative and two neutral responses.
• Praised: Ravi Sir’s Quant and DILR teaching; positive feedback for KD Sir’s VARC teaching and for other instructors named in the survey; strong study materials; and supportive, accessible teachers. Respondents also appreciated the option to watch lectures at 2× speed.
• Concerns: Some students struggled with VARC instruction from a teacher other than KD Sir. Others found the early classes overly detailed or repetitive, particularly if they already knew the basics. Some respondents cited delayed syllabus completion and irregular or late classes. The presenter also raises questions about Rodha’s preparation for exams beyond CAT, including XAT and SNAP.

Elites Grid — 54 responses

• Ratings: 85% positive, 15% neutral, and no negative ratings in this sample.
• Praised: Quant and DILR instruction, especially from Honey Sir and Gaurav Sir; affordability and value for money; an active doubt-resolution system; revision classes; and a structured syllabus. Working professionals reportedly appreciated batch schedules designed around their availability.
• Concerns: VARC received mixed feedback. Students also reported glitches and limitations in the mobile app, including problems using it across devices such as iPads. Some said classes could run for very long sessions—occasionally around 10–12 hours, according to the subtitles.

Overall takeaway

Based on this survey, Rodha and Elites Grid received the strongest overall feedback. Elites Grid had no negative ratings among its 54 respondents, while Rodha received positive ratings from 89% of its 37 respondents.

Unacademy ranked next in the presenter’s comparison, followed by MBA Wala / Physics Wallah’s MBA offering. CATKing and iQuanta received more mixed or negative feedback in their respective samples.

The presenter stresses that each institute has strengths and drawbacks. Students should consider their own needs—such as budget, learning level, subject strengths, schedule, and need for doubt support—rather than relying on a ranking alone.

Speakers and sources featured

• Presenter/narrator: The host of the Amazor Talks video, who explains the survey and its findings.
• Survey respondents: 459 CAT aspirants whose ratings and written feedback form the main source of the results. Institute-specific response totals vary.
• AI analysis tools named: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. They are described as tools used to help analyze the survey data, not as independent sources of student feedback.
• Teachers and coaching providers: Several instructors and institutes are discussed, but the subtitles do not indicate that these teachers appear as speakers in the video.