Goldman Sachs leads North America M&A advisory rankings by deal value in H1 2026, while Houlihan Lokey tops by volume

Goldman Sachs is topping North America’s mergers and acquisitions adviser rankings by total deal value for the first half of 2026, according to a report citing North America league-table results. The bank advised on transactions with an aggregate value of $437.7 billion, placing it first on value for the period.

The same league-table shows Houlihan Lokey taking the top spot by deal count. It ranked first by volume with 104 deals during H1 2026, suggesting it advised on more transactions even if its total deal value was not the highest in the market.

The contrast highlights a recurring feature of M&A advisory league tables: ranking by value tends to reward advisers attached to the largest transactions, while rankings by volume can favor advisers with broader coverage across smaller and mid-sized deals. For banks and boutiques competing for underwriting and advisory mandates, each kind of ranking can announcement different positioning with corporate clients, dealmakers, and private equity sponsors.

While the report provides the headline figures, it does not spell out additional qualifying details such as how deal size was measured, which transaction types were included (for example, whether minority investments, spinoffs, or specific restructuring categories were counted), or whether the figures reflect announced deals only or include deals that were later withdrawn or modified.

From a market standpoint, adviser rankings like these are often watched as a proxy for where capital markets activity is concentrated. Advisory work is typically tied to the depth of a bank or boutique’s relationships across corporate boards, banking intermediaries, and private capital participants. When an adviser tops by value, it can indicate access to large-cap corporate strategy work and major transactions. When an adviser tops by volume, it can indicate momentum across a larger slice of the deal pipeline.

Still, there are limits to what can be concluded from a single half-year snapshot. Without additional disclosure of the methodology, the deal sample, and the split between sectors, geographies, and transaction types, it is not possible to determine whether one firm’s lead reflects a specific industry concentration or a handful of very large mandates. The report also does not clarify how credit for advisory roles was allocated where multiple banks were involved.