How to Read Your CPA Candidate Performance Report and Use It to Pass the Retake

Updated: April 16, 2026

The moment most candidates receive a failing CPA exam score, they do one of two things. They close the score report immediately because seeing the number again is painful, or they stare at the score itself and try to figure out what it means without looking at any of the supporting detail.

Both responses leave the most useful information in the score report completely unused.

The Candidate Performance Report that accompanies a failing score is not a formality. It is the most specific diagnostic information available about what went wrong on that specific attempt and where preparation needs to change before the retake. Candidates who know how to read it and use it correctly build significantly more targeted retake plans than those who treat it as background noise attached to a disappointing number.

This guide covers every component of the Candidate Performance Report, what each rating actually means, what the report can and cannot tell you, the most common mistakes candidates make when interpreting it, and how to turn the data into a concrete retake preparation plan.

What the Candidate Performance Report Is and Who Receives It
How to Access the Report
The Three Rating Categories: What Weaker, Comparable, and Stronger Actually Mean
The Two Dimensions of the Report: Content Areas and Item Types
What the Report Cannot Tell You
The Most Common Misreading of the Performance Report
How to Use the Report to Build a Retake Plan
Reading the Report by Section: FAR, AUD, REG, and the Discipline Sections
What to Do When Everything Shows as Comparable
Key Takeaways
FAQ

Key Takeaways

Point	Details
The report compares your performance against candidates who scored 75 to 80	Weaker, Comparable, and Stronger ratings are relative to just-passing candidates, not the entire candidate population.
Content area ratings are less statistically reliable than the total score	Each content area contains fewer questions than the full exam, which reduces the precision of individual area ratings. Use them as directional signals, not precise diagnoses.
The item type breakdown is often more actionable than content area ratings	Knowing whether underperformance came from MCQs or TBSs tells you what kind of preparation to change, not just what content to review.
Not every state provides the report	The Candidate Performance Report is not universally available. Candidates must check with their specific state board to confirm whether they will receive one.
Studying only Weaker areas is a risky retake strategy	The AICPA explicitly advises against studying only Weaker-rated areas because the next exam attempt will include a different mix of questions covering different aspects of each area.
A score of 70 or above with one Weaker area typically requires a focused retake	A targeted retake concentrating on the identified weak area typically requires 40 to 60 percent fewer study hours than a full re-study.

What the Candidate Performance Report Is and Who Receives It

The Candidate Performance Report is a diagnostic breakdown provided to candidates who do not pass a CPA exam section. It is separate from the score report itself and provides more granular information than the scaled score alone.

The report is produced by the AICPA and distributed through NASBA and state boards of accountancy. It is designed to give failing candidates a structured picture of where their performance fell relative to candidates who scored between 75 and 80 on the same section.

The report is available in most jurisdictions but not all. The AICPA’s own documentation confirms that not every state board provides the report to candidates. Before relying on the report as a planning tool, candidates should verify with their specific state board that it will be provided and through which channel it can be accessed.

For states that do provide the report, it is typically available through the NASBA CPA Central portal alongside the score itself, or through the state board’s own score delivery system. Candidates should download and save the report immediately upon receipt. NASBA portals eventually archive or remove older score notices and reports, and having a saved copy prevents losing access to this information before the retake is completed.

How to Access the Report

For most candidates, the report is accessible through the same portal used to check the score. The standard access path is the NASBA CPA Central portal at nasba.org, where candidates log in with their NASBA ID to view score information.

Some state boards deliver scores directly through their own systems rather than through NASBA. Candidates in these states should check their state board’s website for score access instructions specific to their jurisdiction.

Upon logging in and locating the failed section result, the Candidate Performance Report is typically displayed alongside or linked from the score notice. The report is a structured document, not a raw data export. It presents content area ratings in a visual format that groups performance indicators by content area and by item type.

Candidates who cannot locate their report after checking both the NASBA portal and their state board’s system should contact their state board directly. The report is generated and delivered separately from the score in some jurisdictions, which means it may be available slightly later than the score itself.

The Three Rating Categories: What Weaker, Comparable, and Stronger Actually Mean

The most important thing to understand about the three rating categories before drawing any conclusions from the report is the reference group they are compared against.

Weaker, Comparable, and Stronger do not reflect performance relative to all CPA exam candidates. They reflect performance relative to the specific group of candidates who scored between 75 and 80 on that exam section, the just-passing group.

The AICPA defines the Comparable range as performance within one-half of a standard deviation above and below the average score of the just-passing group in each content area. Performance above that range is rated Stronger. Performance below it is rated Weaker.

The practical meaning of each rating:

Weaker means performance in that content area fell below what just-passing candidates achieved on average. It is a direct signal that this area contributed to the failing score and that targeted preparation here is warranted.

Comparable means performance in that content area was approximately in line with what just-passing candidates achieved. It does not mean the performance was adequate in an absolute sense. It means it was not materially different from candidates who narrowly passed. A candidate who scored 68 on the exam overall could have Comparable ratings across all content areas, which means their performance was uniformly close to passing but not across the threshold.

Stronger means performance in that content area exceeded what just-passing candidates achieved. This is a genuine positive signal for that area and suggests that preparation time for the retake can be reduced here relative to Weaker or Comparable areas.

One important nuance: a Comparable rating is not a clearance to stop studying that area. The just-passing group scored between 75 and 80. A candidate who failed with a 70 and shows Comparable in a content area means their performance in that area matched candidates who barely passed. That area still contributed to the overall failing score. It simply contributed less than the Weaker-rated areas.

The Two Dimensions of the Report: Content Areas and Item Types

The Candidate Performance Report provides performance information along two distinct dimensions. Understanding both dimensions is essential for building an actionable retake plan.

Dimension 1: Content Area Performance

The content area section of the report shows a Weaker, Comparable, or Stronger rating for each major content area within the section. For FAR, this means the four blueprint areas: Conceptual Framework and Financial Reporting, Select Financial Statement Accounts, Select Transactions, and State and Local Governments. For AUD, it covers the four blueprint areas of Ethics and General Principles, Assessing Risk, Performing Further Procedures, and Forming Conclusions. REG shows ratings across its five blueprint areas.

These ratings identify which broad domains of the exam produced the most significant performance gaps. A Weaker rating in State and Local Governments on FAR, for example, is a clear signal that governmental accounting content underperformed relative to passing candidates and deserves targeted attention in the retake preparation.

Dimension 2: Item Type Performance

The item type section of the report shows separate performance ratings for MCQs and for TBSs. This dimension is often more immediately actionable than the content area ratings because it identifies what kind of preparation needs to change rather than just what content to review.

A candidate who shows Weaker on TBSs but Comparable or Stronger on MCQs has a simulation-specific performance gap. The retake preparation for this candidate should shift toward simulation practice, process-level work through difficult problems, and exam-strategy coaching for simulations, regardless of which content areas show as Weaker. More MCQ practice will not fix a TBS performance gap.

A candidate who shows Weaker on MCQs but Comparable on TBSs has a different problem: the content knowledge being applied in simulations is sufficient, but the question-reading, application, or pacing in the MCQ testlets is falling short. This might reflect a test-taking approach issue rather than purely a content gap.

The interaction between these two dimensions produces four possible patterns, each with a different retake implication:

MCQ Performance	TBS Performance	Likely Implication
Weaker or Comparable	Weaker	Both content knowledge and simulation execution need work. Most common pattern in FAR and BAR retakers.
Comparable or Stronger	Weaker	Content knowledge is adequate but simulation skills and strategy need specific development.
Weaker	Comparable or Stronger	Content recognition is not converting to correct MCQ answers. May indicate question-reading, time management, or application problems.
Comparable	Comparable	Performance was uniformly close to passing across both item types. The issue is marginal overall rather than specific. Different approach needed.

What the Report Cannot Tell You

Understanding what the Candidate Performance Report cannot tell you is as important as understanding what it can, because overinterpreting the data leads to misdirected retake preparation.

It cannot tell you which specific questions or topics caused the most damage.

The ratings are aggregated across all questions within each content area. A Weaker rating in Select Transactions on FAR does not tell you whether the weakness came from lease accounting, consolidations, pensions, derivatives, or all of the above. It tells you the aggregate performance in that area was below the passing standard. Identifying the specific topics within a Weaker-rated area requires additional diagnostic work, such as reviewing the error log from practice sessions or attempting a focused set of practice questions across each subtopic in the area.

It cannot give you exact scores or percentages by content area.

The AICPA does not publish raw scores or percentage correct figures by content area. The three-category rating system is the only granularity available. A Weaker rating in a given area could reflect marginally below-passing performance or significantly below-passing performance. The total scaled score provides a rough sense of overall distance from passing, but the content area ratings do not provide equivalent precision.

It does not tell you how many questions were in each content area on your specific exam.

Because different candidates receive different question sets, the number of questions covering any given content area varies between exam administrations. The AICPA explicitly notes this limitation in its own documentation: the content area performance ratings are based on a smaller number of questions than the total exam and are therefore less statistically reliable than the total score.

It does not tell you what to stop studying.

Stronger-rated areas should receive less retake preparation time than Weaker areas, but not zero. The AICPA advises against studying only Weaker areas because the next exam attempt will include a different mix of questions and a different set of items covering different aspects of each area. A Stronger rating reflects past performance on a specific question set. It does not guarantee the same performance on a different question set.

The Most Common Misreading of the Performance Report

The single most common misreading of the Candidate Performance Report is treating it as a definitive list of the areas to study and the areas to skip.

A candidate who sees Weaker in Governmental Accounting and Comparable or Stronger everywhere else concludes that they only need to fix governmental accounting and can effectively ignore everything else for the retake. This interpretation feels logical but frequently produces a second failure.

The reason is the statistical limitation the AICPA itself identifies. Content area ratings are based on relatively few questions. A Comparable rating in revenue recognition on one exam attempt does not guarantee that performance will be Comparable on revenue recognition in the next attempt, because the next attempt will include a different selection of revenue recognition questions covering different aspects of the topic.

The right interpretation of the report is directional rather than prescriptive. Weaker areas are the highest-priority focus for the retake. Comparable areas deserve continued study, with less time than Weaker areas but not neglect. Stronger areas can receive reduced attention but should not be abandoned.

The retake preparation plan built from the report should look something like this allocation:

Weaker-rated content areas: 50 to 60 percent of retake preparation time
Comparable-rated content areas: 30 to 40 percent of retake preparation time
Stronger-rated content areas: 10 to 15 percent of retake preparation time (maintenance review only)

This allocation ensures the most critical gaps receive the most attention without creating new vulnerabilities in previously adequate areas.

How to Use the Report to Build a Retake Plan

The most effective retake plans built from the Candidate Performance Report follow a five-step process.

Step 1: Record every rating before doing anything else.

Write down every content area rating and the item type ratings (MCQ and TBS separately) immediately after accessing the report. Having this information in a single list, rather than clicking back and forth through a portal, makes the planning process easier and ensures nothing is missed.

Step 2: Identify the priority tier for each area.

Group content areas into three tiers based on their ratings: Weaker areas are Tier 1 (highest retake priority), Comparable areas are Tier 2 (continued but reduced attention), and Stronger areas are Tier 3 (maintenance review only).

Step 3: Layer the item type data onto the content area data.

If TBSs show as Weaker, simulation practice needs to be a primary component of the retake, not a secondary one, regardless of which content areas are Weaker. If MCQs show as Weaker, the retake plan needs a specific focus on question-reading strategy and timed MCQ practice under exam conditions, in addition to the content work.

Step 4: Estimate the total study hours needed for the retake.

A candidate who scored 70 or above with one or two Weaker content areas typically needs 40 to 60 percent of the original preparation hours, focused specifically on the identified weak areas. A candidate who scored below 65 or who has multiple Weaker areas should plan for a more comprehensive retake closer to the full preparation hour range for that section.

Step 5: Set a retake exam date and build backward from it.

Identifying the retake exam date before beginning preparation creates a concrete deadline that structures how study hours are allocated across the available weeks. For core sections, any available date can be scheduled. For discipline sections, the next quarterly window (January, April, July, or October) determines the earliest available retake date.

For candidates who want help interpreting their specific report and building a targeted retake plan from it, the CPA tutoring services at Andrew Katz Tutoring include performance report review as a core component of the initial diagnostic session. Candidates can review rates and packages before scheduling a consultation.

Reading the Report by Section: FAR, AUD, REG, and the Discipline Sections

The specific content areas that appear in the report differ by section. Knowing which areas map to which blueprint content makes the ratings immediately interpretable rather than requiring a separate lookup.

FAR Content Areas in the Report:

Area I: Conceptual Framework, Standard-Setting, and Financial Reporting (25-35% of exam). Area II: Select Financial Statement Accounts (30-40%). Area III: Select Transactions (20-30%). Area IV: State and Local Governments (5-15%).

A Weaker rating in Area IV is the most common pattern among marginal FAR failures and corresponds directly to governmental and not-for-profit accounting content. A Weaker rating in Area III typically reflects difficulty with leases, consolidations, pensions, or derivatives. The guide on how to study for FAR covers the specific subtopics within each area in detail.

AUD Content Areas in the Report:

Area I: Ethics, Professional Responsibilities, and General Principles (15-25%). Area II: Assessing Risk and Developing a Planned Response (25-35%). Area III: Performing Further Procedures and Obtaining Evidence (30-40%). Area IV: Forming Conclusions and Reporting (10-20%).

A Weaker rating in Area III is the most common AUD failure pattern and reflects difficulty with evidence, sampling, substantive procedures, or document review simulations. A Weaker in Area I typically reflects gaps in independence rules or professional standards knowledge.

REG Content Areas in the Report:

Area I: Ethics, Professional Responsibilities, and Federal Tax Procedures (10-20%). Area II: Business Law (15-25%). Area III: Federal Taxation of Property Transactions (5-15%). Area IV: Federal Taxation of Individuals (15-25%). Area V: Federal Taxation of Entities (28-38%).

A Weaker rating in Area V is the most consequential REG pattern given its blueprint weight. Entity taxation failures, particularly in partnership and S corporation areas, are the most common source of REG retakes. The guide on how to pass REG covers the entity taxation content in detail.

BAR, ISC, and TCP:

The discipline section reports follow the same three-category format across their respective content areas as defined in each section’s AICPA Blueprint. For BAR, particular attention to Area III (State and Local Governments, 20-30%) is warranted given how frequently this area contributes to marginal BAR failures.

What to Do When Everything Shows as Comparable

A specific pattern that causes confusion in the Candidate Performance Report is when all content areas show as Comparable and neither MCQs nor TBSs show as Weaker. A candidate who failed with a 71 and sees all Comparable ratings may conclude that the report provides no useful information because nothing specific is identified as the problem.

This pattern is more common than many candidates expect, and it has a specific meaning: the performance was uniformly close to passing but not across the threshold in any single area that can be isolated. The issue is marginal overall rather than concentrated in a specific gap.

For candidates in this situation, the retake strategy is different from the Weaker-area targeting approach described above. The problem is not a specific content gap. It is a marginal performance gap distributed across the entire exam. The most likely causes are:

Time management causing rushed performance across all testlets. A candidate who ran short on time in the simulation testlets and made hurried decisions across multiple areas would produce marginally below-passing performance everywhere rather than a concentrated weakness in one place.

Question-reading errors distributed across multiple topics. Candidates who consistently misread question stems or select the plausible-but-wrong answer rather than the best answer produce Comparable-across-the-board results because the errors are not content-specific.

Simulation strategy producing partial credit rather than full credit across all TBSs. A candidate who consistently left simulation components incomplete or used suboptimal approaches across all simulations would show marginal TBS performance across all areas without any single area showing as dramatically Weaker.

For all-Comparable candidates, the retake preparation priority shifts toward exam strategy rather than content review. Time management under real exam conditions, deliberate MCQ reading habits, and simulation completion strategy are more likely to move the score above 75 than additional content study on areas where performance was already Comparable to passing candidates.

For candidates whose report shows all Comparable ratings and who want to identify what specifically needs to change for the retake, a diagnostic tutoring session is particularly valuable because the gap is not identifiable from the content ratings alone. The tutoring services at Andrew Katz Tutoring include specific work on exam strategy for candidates in this situation.

Key Takeaways

The Candidate Performance Report is a diagnostic tool, not a verdict. Its ratings are directional signals rather than precise diagnoses, and the AICPA itself recommends against treating Weaker-rated areas as the only areas requiring retake preparation.

The most effective use of the report combines the content area ratings with the item type ratings to identify both what needs to change and what kind of preparation will produce that change. A candidate with a Weaker TBS rating and Comparable MCQ ratings needs different retake preparation from one with the reverse pattern, even if both failed with the same scaled score.

For candidates whose report shows all Comparable ratings, the issue is marginal overall performance rather than a concentrated gap, and the retake preparation focus should shift toward exam strategy rather than content review.

The report is most powerful when combined with honest self-assessment of how preparation was structured, what topics were avoided, and how study time was actually allocated. Together, these inputs produce a retake plan that addresses the actual cause of the failure rather than the most visible one.

FAQ

How do I access my CPA Candidate Performance Report?

The report is accessible through the NASBA CPA Central portal at nasba.org for most candidates, alongside the score notice for the failed section. Some state boards deliver scores and performance reports through their own systems. Candidates who cannot locate the report after checking the NASBA portal should contact their state board directly. The report should be downloaded and saved immediately, as NASBA portals eventually archive older score notices.

Does every candidate who fails receive a Candidate Performance Report?

No. The Candidate Performance Report is not universally available across all jurisdictions. The AICPA notes directly that not all state boards provide the report. Candidates should verify with their specific state board of accountancy whether the report will be provided and through which channel.

What does Comparable mean on the CPA Candidate Performance Report?

Comparable means performance in that content area was approximately in line with candidates who scored between 75 and 80 on the exam section overall. It does not mean the performance was adequate in an absolute sense. A candidate who failed with a 68 and shows Comparable in all areas means their performance matched just-passing candidates across all areas but was not quite at the passing threshold overall.

Should I only study Weaker-rated areas for my retake?

No. The AICPA explicitly advises against studying only Weaker-rated areas because the next exam attempt will include a different mix of questions covering different aspects of each content area. A Stronger or Comparable rating on one attempt does not guarantee the same performance on a different question set covering different aspects of the same area. Weaker areas should receive the most retake preparation time but Comparable areas still require continued study.

What should I do if my Candidate Performance Report shows all Comparable ratings?

All-Comparable ratings indicate that performance was uniformly close to passing across all content areas rather than concentrated in a specific gap. The retake preparation focus in this situation should shift toward exam strategy, including time management under real conditions, deliberate MCQ reading habits, and simulation completion strategy, rather than additional content review in areas that were already Comparable to passing candidates.

How many hours do I need to study for my retake?

A candidate who scored 70 or above with one or two Weaker content areas typically needs 40 to 60 percent of the original preparation hours, focused specifically on the identified weak areas. A candidate who scored below 65 or has multiple Weaker areas should plan for a more comprehensive retake closer to the full first-attempt preparation hour range for that section.

Looking for help interpreting your Candidate Performance Report and building a targeted retake plan from it? Visit the CPA tutoring services page at Andrew Katz Tutoring, review rates and packages, or browse the blog for more CPA exam strategy resources.

How to Read Your CPA Candidate Performance Report and Use It to Pass the Retake