It is not a question of having more skills in volume - its that strategy consultants posses more UNIQUE skills than investment bankers. They have to have strong analytical skills AND rely on creativity, style, persuasiveness, adaptability etc etc. A good strategist can analyse a situation and break it down in seconds (there is a good book that explains how Napoleon used to do it).Salary and profits generated by the company make no difference at all in valuing who is most unique: im sure you realize an oxford professor makes less than a plumber - dont tell me the plumber has more 'skills'? Money isnt everything when it comes to intellectual challenges - and if you ask me, advising a government on thier domestic strategy, or creating a market entry plan for ftse 10 is more demanding mentally than producing a DCF model in half the normal time it should take. .Lastly, there are very very few strat consultants in the world - even if you look at Mckinsey, 70% of their work is operational. There are far more bankers doing thier valuations, comparables and M&A transactions - which is a very high skilled, yet REPETITIVE METHODOLOGY. In short - its much harder to find people that are good at strat consulting. Find a Mckinsian and have dinner with him. then do the same from one from Goldman's. Im sure the difference will be clear from the start.