Hi everyone, hope you all are doing well.
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my question.

Cranfield course: https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/masters-courses/finance#Overview
Bayes course: https://www.bayes.city.ac.uk/study/masters/courses/finance
Queen Mary: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/postgraduate/taught/coursefinder/courses/investment-banking-msc/

I have the choice of pursuing an MSc in finance from these three universities and I am confused about which one will be the best, as QS rankings and FT rankings are inconsistent.

Cranfield: QS Ranking 9th in UK, FT ranking 8th in UK
Bayes: QS Ranking 13th in UK, FT ranking 5th in UK
Queen: Both ranking authorities have it quite low or not at all.

(going to 2021 & 2020 year's rankings in FT Bayes stays consistent, Cranfield drops to a lower ranking in 2021 and does not exist in 2020 rankings)

QS ranking site used: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/business-masters-rankings/finance/2023

FT ranking: https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2874/masters-in-finance-pre-experience-2022

My goal is to get a job and settle in the UK, I want a job in private equity/Investment banking/Financial consultancy like M&A services. So the university that has a better employer reputation and higher salary avg is preferred. I also prefer London because of networking opportunities and part-time work for a skilled worker like myself.

I am also an ACCA member to give some background info, and I have worked with EY for 2 years as an Auditor.

Thank you for reading, and for your advice.

I don't understand why you feel these are inconsistent, especially since they both clearly indicate Bayes > Cranfield > big gap > Queen Mary. They use different methods, so their results are never likely to be identical. 

You have ambitious goals. PE and M&A are lightly elite activities involving small numbers of people. Better schools will be more effective. For generic IB roles, I would not consider a worse school than Bayes.