I have heard Manhattan GMAT is harder than the actual GMAT, specially the Quant section.

GMAT Prep is supposed to be an accurate simulation. Take the second free test if you want a better idea.

Manhattan tests Quant are tougher than real GMAT..Don't rely too much on Manhattan scores..These tests are used to improve ur speed and accuracy thru constraint time..GMATPREP tests gives u accurate simulation..

Thanks guy! That makes me feel much better. I took a big hit on the quant section of the mgmat vs the offical. The verbal was down a couple points, but the quant was down significantly.

Thanks for the input, I will sleep a little better!

Hey guys,

Good discussion on the practice tests - I think you'll find that a lot of the corporate practice tests will underestimate your score a bit, if only to compensate for the tolerance interval by making sure that we encourage people to study more and don't allow anyone to become complacent. No one is going to complain about scoring 640 on practice test and 700 on the real thing, but they'll probably be miffed if the opposite happens.

More important than that, however, is that, although it's much easier said than done, you should really treat practice tests much more as a learning experience than as a true estimation of your ability. Practice tests are very good at helping you determine:

-How you're pacing yourself on 37 math questions in 75 minutes and on 41 verbal questions in 75 minutes
-How you react to taking a 3.5 hour test and staying focused toward the end
-Which mistakes you tend to make when under pressure
-Which concept areas you struggle with or simply take too long to process
-Where there are significant areas for improvement

In terms of scoring, however, they're decent but not perfect - they're much more effective at telling you how to improve your score than at telling you what your score really is. And, honestly, I'd much rather learn the former than the latter. The only score that really matters is the one that you report on your application - each practice test score is simply a means toward that end.

Keep this in mind - GMAT scoring is not "linear" the way that measures like time in a running race are. If you want to run a mile in 6 minutes on a track, you can monitor your lap splits and work them down to <1:30 per lap to get there. If your practice mile is 6:40, you know that you only need to squeeze out an extra 10 seconds per lap to make it. You just need to cut 11% off your time.

On the GMAT, the differences are much more subtle. You can miss 3-4 questions by making the same exact silly mistake, and because of the scoring algorithm those 3-4 questions can have a pretty pronounced effect. Or you can waste 3-4 minutes on a handful of questions, causing you to make mistakes later as you rush to still-not-finish. Saving that time could save you 5-6 questions down the road.

It's infinitely more important to learn those types of things from your practice tests than to hit a particular score on them (well, 800 would be welcome, but still...). Personally, I'd gladly sacrifice 100 points on a practice test if it taught me just one lesson (e.g. "you need to be careful setting up ratios because you blew two questions on them just on the setup") that came in handy on test day. To bring this discussion full-circle, that's likely why most of the practice tests you'll find are a little harder on scoring than the real thing...