How are you supposed to improve from ‘another candidate matched better’?
I genuinely don’t know what I’m doing wrong anymore in interviews.
I’ve been interviewing for graduate / entry-level roles in London across areas like energy, finance, analytics, and consulting. In quite a few interviews, the conversations actually feel good. The interviews run over time, the interviewers seem engaged, they ask follow-up questions, and sometimes recruiters even call me afterwards saying the feedback was positive.
But then I get rejected with the same type of response every time:
“You’re clearly bright / impressive / capable, but another candidate matched the role better.”
And honestly, I don’t know what I’m supposed to improve from that.
If I was technically weak, lacked communication skills, or performed badly, I could work on it. But this feedback feels impossible to action. It makes me wonder whether:
\- the London market is just insanely competitive right now
\- companies are prioritising candidates with more direct experience
\- I’m missing something subtle in interviews without realising it
\- or whether this is simply normal for graduate recruiting in 2026
For context, I have experience in investment banking, ESG, and renewable energy analysis, and I’ve made it to final stages for several roles, but I still can’t seem to get over the line.
Has anyone else experienced this cycle where interviews feel genuinely positive, but the outcome is still rejection? And if so, what actually helped you improve or finally break through?
I’m trying to stay motivated, but it’s honestly becoming disheartening.