It gets a bit weird with some unaccredited for profit schools, whom I guess are QS clients. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/mba-rankings/europe/2023

If QS is that blatant, how can we really trust their rankings?  Perhaps some schools were completely ignored just because they refused to pay?  

Good thing is nobody actually takes QS MBA rankings seriously (at least I hope not).  

I don't think I see any notable absences and perhaps come of these schools are making an impact. I think there has to be some data at work here, but it doesn't feel right. 

How can you explain the massive differences between QS and financial times. I don't trust the QS one, the only that makes sense for me is the financial times one because they take salaries as the most important parameter while making the ranking while the QS seems much more subjective.

[Edited by Andy800 on Oct 02, 2022]

The difference is explained by the different variables used in the ranking. QS explains the difference at https://www.topmba.com/mba-rankings/global-mba-rankings-methodology-qs-vs-economist-vs-financial-times

However, while QS claims that its Global ranking requires one of the triple crown, many of the schools in the European ranking do not have meaningful international accreditation. 

Thank you @duncan but how can thought leadership count towards 15% of the ranking...

Taken from your link:"A total of 13 criteria form the basis of five key indicators that programs were ranked on: employability (40 percent), entrepreneurship and alumni outcomes (15 percent), return on investment (20 percent), thought leadership (15 percent) and class & faculty diversity (10 percent)."

[Edited by Andy800 on Oct 02, 2022]

Research quality and impact are common measures for graduate schools. The FT rankings have also included research impact and research intensity.