Actual Waterfall Charts Used by Bain, BCG, and McKinsey

McKinsey: hydrogen demand decomposed by sector

One recurring McKinsey pattern is the sector-level demand decomposition waterfall — a chart that breaks down how a commodity or resource's total demand is expected to change, with each sector contributing a bar.

The pattern: a "current demand" bar on the left, then a series of positive bars (one per sector expecting growth), sometimes a negative bar for sectors contracting, and a "projected demand" bar on the right. The action title states which sector is the dominant driver.

What makes this effective: the bars are ordered by size (largest contributor first), the action title names the dominant driver, and the chart spans a long enough horizon that the growth is meaningful. The underlying logic applies to any demand forecast decomposition — EV adoption, renewable energy, data center power.

McKinsey: GenAI productivity impact by function

Another frequent McKinsey pattern is the productivity impact waterfall — showing how an emerging technology or initiative affects cost or output across different business functions. Each bar represents a function, with the height showing the percentage productivity gain.

The key design choice: when the bars represent percentages (not absolute dollars), the chart works best when the starting bar is set to zero and all bars are positive — it becomes a pure contribution chart rather than a bridge. McKinsey often adds a "blended average" or "total impact" bar at the end.

BCG: generational contribution to market growth

BCG publishes extensively on consumer markets, and one of their signature waterfall patterns decomposes market growth by consumer cohort — showing how different generational groups (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers) contributed to overall spending growth.

The distinctive feature: BCG often shows both positive contributors (cohorts with growing spend) and negative contributors (cohorts with declining spend) in the same chart, with the net effect shown as the ending bar. This creates a nuanced picture where total market growth may be modest but driven by a dramatic shift between cohorts.

BCG: emissions abatement cost waterfall

BCG's climate practice uses a particularly sophisticated waterfall variant: the abatement cost chart. This chart plots carbon reduction levers on the x-axis (each bar has a width representing megatons of CO₂ reduction) and cost on the y-axis, with bars that can go both above and below the zero line depending on whether the lever costs money or saves it.

The simplified version — which is more commonly useful — just shows total emissions reduction broken down by lever, ordered from cheapest to most expensive. The action title typically calls out the threshold where levers become cost-positive.

Bain: price vs. volume growth bridge

Bain uses a compact three-bar waterfall more than any other firm: starting period revenue, price contribution, volume contribution (and sometimes a mix bar), ending period revenue. This price/volume/mix decomposition is particularly common in Bain's consumer goods and retail work.

The power of this format is its simplicity. Three or four bars tell the complete story of what drove growth. In Bain decks, this chart often appears on the first page of a revenue performance section, with subsequent pages diving deeper into each driver.

Bain: green financing need by theme

In Bain's Southeast Asia sustainability work, a recurring waterfall shows total financing need broken down by investment theme — clean energy, sustainable agriculture, resilient infrastructure, and so on. Each bar is a positive contributor, building up to a total that is then compared against current financing flows.

The distinctive feature is using two waterfalls side-by-side: one showing the need, one showing the current supply, with the gap made visually explicit. This two-waterfall comparison structure is more persuasive than stating the gap as a single number because it makes both sides of the equation legible.

Common patterns across all three firms

Looking across Bain, BCG, and McKinsey waterfall charts, several patterns are universal:

• The title is always a complete sentence — never just "Revenue Bridge FY23–FY24." Always a finding.
• Start and end bars are always zero-based — they touch the x-axis. Intermediate bars float.
• Connector lines are always present between intermediate bars to show the running total.
• Value labels are always on the bars, not decoded from axis height.
• The source is always cited — internal data, industry report, expert interviews, or proprietary model.
• Maximum 8 bars — beyond that, even the best-designed waterfall becomes hard to parse quickly.

Recreate any of these in minutes

Every example above follows the same underlying data structure: a starting value, a set of positive or negative contributors, and an ending value. Enter that structure into Waterfall Maker and you get a slide formatted to the same standard as the originals — action title, proper color coding, dashed connectors, value labels, source line.