GMAT vs GRE: How to Compare Scores

The “700 GMAT to GRE” Question: Sensible Ask, False Precision

Asking what the GRE equivalent of your GMAT score is (or vice versa) makes sense. It’s a way of reducing uncertainty: If I have (or can plausibly earn) a 700 GMAT, what would that imply on the GRE—and would it read as competitive at my target schools? Wanting a single translated number is a rational impulse. The trap is overprecision—treating an approximate conversion as if it were a lab‑calibrated measurement.

The decision you’re actually trying to make

MBA admissions doesn’t run on a spreadsheet that accepts one “true” converted score. You’re making a decision under uncertainty: which test to take, how to allocate prep time, and how to calibrate a school list to maximize your odds given your time, budget, and realistic score ceiling.

Why 700 doesn’t map cleanly to one GRE number

Three definitional and practical complications make one-number answers misleading:

• The ETS concordance tool is a prediction model, not an official equating. It estimates likely relationships across populations; it does not declare two scores interchangeable.
• GMAC guidance cautions against cross-test comparisons for high-stakes decisions. That caution is prudent—especially when conversions get used as hard cutoffs.
• “700 GMAT” depends on the exam version. A 700 on the original GMAT is not the same reference point as a score on the GMAT Focus Edition vs the original GMAT.

So this article won’t sell you a magic number. It will give you something more operational: how to think in ranges, how to use percentiles without over-reading them (percentiles provide within-test context), and how to sanity-check your plan when different authorities seem to disagree.

Guardrail: Don’t anchor on a single converted number. Treat any conversion as one input alongside school norms, your overall profile, and your prep constraints.

Stop Treating “700” as Timeless: Original GMAT vs. GMAT Focus

A “700 GMAT” is no longer a timeless benchmark. It’s a score on the legacy (Original) GMAT scale. The GMAT Focus Edition uses a different score scale and a different section structure. Until you name the measuring instrument, questions like “Is 700 good?” or “What GRE score equals 700?” aren’t just premature—they’re the wrong category of question.

Pearl’s Ladder of Causation offers a useful guardrail. A score is not an “intervention” on your underlying ability; it’s a measurement produced by a specific test form, on a specific scale. Change the instrument, and the number does not travel cleanly. That’s why a school’s “average GMAT” line item is only interpretable once you know which GMAT version it reflects—especially in class profiles published during a transition period.

Concordance is a bridge— not a magical conversion

When you need to compare the two GMAT versions, what you want is concordance: an official mapping designed to align scores by meaning (often via percentile-based relationships). It’s not claiming the questions are “the same,” and it’s not pretending both versions share a common ruler. This is where applicants often go wrong by jumping straight to an ETS conversion tool or a third-party “GMAT-to-GRE chart,” which may silently assume a particular GMAT version.

Version check (do this first):

• When a school cites a class profile or “average GMAT,” confirm whether it’s Original GMAT or GMAT Focus.
• If you need to compare across versions, use GMAC guidance / official concordance resources to translate within GMAT.
• Only then consider how a GRE score might be interpreted in that context.

The predictable failure mode is mixing an old “700 benchmark” with Focus-era summaries. The result is avoidable anxiety—or unjustified confidence—based on a comparison that was never valid in the first place.

ETS vs GMAC on “Conversion”: Two Different Questions, One Safer Decision Framework

ETS offers a GRE-to-GMAT conversion tool. GMAC, meanwhile, cautions against direct comparisons. That can read like experts at war. It’s closer to a category error: they’re answering different questions, and your decisions get better when you keep those questions separate.

“Conversion” can mean equating—or prediction

Equating (concordance) is the high-stakes claim. It says two scores are interchangeable because they sit on a shared scale under tight assumptions. That’s the standard you would want if you planned to treat a GRE number as the same thing as a GMAT number in admissions.

Prediction is the more defensible way to read the ETS tool: a statistical estimate—often a range—of what someone with a given GRE performance might score on the GMAT. Useful for planning. Not a promise. And not an admissions policy.

Why both messages can be true at once

GMAC’s warning targets validity and misuse. Trouble starts when applicants (or well-meaning advisors) treat a predicted “equivalent” as interchangeable. Two failure modes show up fast:

• Overconfidence: “I’m basically at a 700, so I’m done,” even when the output was only a model-based signal.
• Phantom benchmarks: unnecessary retesting because a conversion output looks a bit low, despite the uncertainty baked into the estimate.

Those risks get amplified if you skip a basic version check (Original GMAT vs GMAT Focus Edition), because “GMAT” may not even refer to the same scale.

Common conversion mistake: using a single converted number as admissions proof. Treat it as a rough signal, then re-anchor on percentiles, program norms, and your broader profile.

The mature stance is evaluativist: use ETS for low-stakes calibration, and use GMAC’s reminder to keep uncertainty—and context—inside your decision-making.

Treat “700 equivalent” as a decision tool—not a point estimate

If you’re asking for a “700 GMAT GRE equivalent,” you’re usually trying to decide whether to submit, retake, or switch tests—not win a conversion contest. So resist false precision. The safest stance is range thinking: treat any output from an ETS tool, a third‑party calculator, or even GMAC guidance as a band with uncertainty, not a single “true” number.

Start with a quick version check. “700” is an Original GMAT reference point, and GMAT Focus vs. Original GMAT differences make one‑line comparisons easy to misread if you mix score scales casually.

A workflow that survives ambiguity

Pearl’s Ladder is a useful reminder here: most conversion tables make association claims (“people with X on Test A often have Y on Test B”), while applicants instinctively want a counterfactual (“if I had taken the GMAT instead, I’d get 700″). Don’t smuggle a counterfactual conclusion out of an association tool.

Use a threshold‑first process:

• Anchor on your school list’s published context. Pull each program’s class profile and note GMAT and GRE ranges/typical scores separately when available.
• Translate your score into within‑test meaning. Percentiles answer “how rare is this score on this test?”—a helpful signal, but not universal currency across exams.
• Use conversion as a sanity check, not an authority. If a tool implies you’re wildly “above” or “below” what profiles suggest, investigate the gap rather than treating the output as precise.
• Decide at the margin. Submit, retake, or switch tests based on whether you’ve cleared a reasonable threshold for your list.

Common conversion mistakes: treating percentiles as interchangeable across tests; ignoring that small percentile moves at the top end can look like huge “equivalent” swings; mixing Original GMAT and GMAT Focus score talk.

Risk-management heuristic: if you’re near a boundary, gather more evidence (fresh practice tests, a second attempt, or school‑specific reporting) instead of debating the exact mapping.

A 700 Isn’t a Verdict—It’s a Signal. Judge It Against Your Programs and Profile.

“Good” in MBA admissions isn’t a moral grade or a universal cutoff. It’s a signal—one that supports your academic-readiness narrative and, ideally, doesn’t hijack attention from the rest of your candidacy.

A 700 became a cultural benchmark largely because it sat near a psychologically neat round number on the Original GMAT scale and circulated as shorthand for “strong.” Shorthand, however, isn’t the same thing as evidence.

Version check (quick): A “700” is an Original GMAT score. If you took GMAT Focus, interpret your result on its own scale and percentiles—and when you compare across tests, follow GMAC guidance rather than internet mashups.

Start with the only comparison set that matters

Anchor your judgment in your target programs’ published class profiles—specifically, the reported score ranges/percentiles for recent entering classes. That’s the closest public proxy for how your application will look at those schools. By contrast, social-media “average admits” blend different programs, years, and applicant mixes into one noisy number.

A practical stop-or-retest logic

• If your score sits comfortably within what your programs typically report and your transcript already signals quantitative readiness (rigorous coursework, strong grades), then it’s often rational to stop testing and shift your time to execution: essays, recommendations, and fit.
• If your score is competitive overall but you carry a clear math question mark (light quant coursework, weaker quant grades, or a role/goal that demands heavy analytics credibility), then retesting—or strengthening the quant story through other means—can be worth the opportunity cost.
• If you’re applying into especially competitive buckets where scores cluster high, then the real question isn’t “is 700 good?” but whether an incremental increase would change your odds given your constraints.

If you’re tempted to convert to GRE

Use official tools (for example, the ETS score-comparison resources) cautiously. Focus less on chasing a mythical “700 vibe” and more on the section that addresses your specific doubt—often quantitative readiness.

GMAT vs. GRE: What “No Preference” Really Means—and How to Choose

Most top MBA programs accept either the GMAT or the GRE—and many explicitly state they have “no preference.” Take that as permission: submitting a GRE score is not a signal that you’re less committed to an MBA.

Policy isn’t psychology. “No preference” is a policy claim: both tests are legitimate, will be reviewed seriously, and won’t be screened out on principle. It is not a promise that every reader experiences both score reports as identical information. Admissions readers are human; familiarity, heuristics, and workload constraints can shape interpretation at the margins. Two things can be true at once: the school treats both exams as valid, and individual interpretation may still vary slightly.

Let constraints—not prestige anxiety—drive the decision. In practice, the differences that matter are tactical: section design and pacing, which skills you can demonstrate most reliably, your timeline, and how the score supports your academic-readiness narrative (often shorthand for “can this person handle quant-heavy coursework?”).

Don’t get fooled by percentiles. The GMAT and GRE test-taking populations can differ, so cross-test percentile comparisons can mislead—a classic self-selection trap. When schools publish program-specific score ranges, those are typically more decision-relevant than generic internet equivalencies.

A risk-aware decision rubric

• Pick the test you can score higher on sooner with a sustainable prep plan.
• Prefer the GMAT only if you have a concrete reason (for example, in some geographies or industries where certain pipelines/employers are more GMAT-familiar) and the tradeoff doesn’t meaningfully lower your score.
• Stick with the GRE if you already have momentum and it will produce a cleaner, faster result.

Version check: If you take the GMAT, confirm whether a program expects GMAT Focus vs. original reporting.

Conversion tools: Use the ETS tool or GMAC guidance to plan, not to argue. Committees evaluate the score you submit—not a hypothetical “equivalent.”

Stop chasing a “700 equivalent”: build a testing plan that survives uncertainty

You don’t need a perfect “700 equivalent” to move forward. You need a plan that’s robust to ambiguity—one that still makes sense when tools disagree, policies shift, or you discover new strengths (or liabilities) in your own testing profile.

Single-loop: a 10‑minute operating checklist

• Name your target schools—reach/target/safety. Selectivity changes the bar, and it should change your strategy.
• Pull each school’s latest test-score guidance. Use class profile ranges if they publish them; otherwise rely on their stated expectations. Save screenshots/links so you can point back to dated sources.
• Do a version check before you compare anything. Label every GMAT datapoint as GMAT (Original) or GMAT Focus Edition.
• Translate your result into percentiles—but only within the same test and version. Percentiles let you reason cleanly without pretending different exams share one universal scale.
• Decide by thresholds, not vibes. Are you clearly in range, clearly out of range, or in the ambiguous middle where other parts of your profile must do more work?

Double-loop: a safe protocol for conversion tools

If you use the ETS conversion tool or any third‑party converter, treat the output as a rough estimate, not a number with admissions-grade precision. Record it as a range, sanity-check it against GMAC guidance on score interpretation, and never cite a converted score in an application—report only official scores.

Triple-loop: three application-ready scenarios

• Strong overall profile + score comfortably aligned: stop testing. Redeploy time to essays, recommenders, and execution.
• You expect quant skepticism (role, transcript, or goals): prioritize the test and prep choices that most credibly signal quantitative readiness.
• Time-constrained retaker: pick the exam where the next 4–6 weeks produce the best marginal gain—based on format fit, section strengths, and retake logistics.

When to ask for help

Bring in a second set of eyes if your official scores don’t match practice trends, your section strengths are lopsided, or you’re unsure whether your school list is calibrated.

Proof paragraph: what this looks like in practice

Consider a scenario where a candidate has five years in a brand-name role, strong leadership stories, and a shortlist spanning one highly selective program plus a few solid targets. Their practice results suggest strength in verbal but inconsistent quant. They start by version-labeling every datapoint (Original vs Focus), then anchor on percentiles rather than forcing a single “equivalent.” The threshold call becomes clear: one target sits “in range,” the reach sits in the gray zone. Instead of chasing conversion outputs, they choose the next 4–6 weeks of prep that most directly addresses quant skepticism—and lock the rest of the calendar for essays and recommender management.

Robust plan mantra: top applicants don’t hunt for the perfect conversion; they build a decision process that survives uncertainty—and then execute.