Magoosh LSAT Prep vs Magoosh GMAT Prep

Magoosh LSAT is built around 80+ video strategy lessons covering Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, plus 6,000+ official LSAC questions and 1,000+ question explanations delivered through the included LawHub Advantage subscription. The single most important content fact is that it is current: the course was rebuilt for the post-August-2024 LSAT, which removed the Analytical Reasoning ("Logic Games") section and replaced it with a second Logical Reasoning section. That matters because a number of older LSAT courses still teach Logic Games as a scored section, and Magoosh does not. The honest content limit, raised across multiple independent reviews, is depth and method: the lessons are deliberately lean ("strategic overview," "bare bones"), and some users report that a lesson teaches only one way to attack a question type rather than the multiple approaches a top scorer eventually needs.

The on-demand class tier is taught by a 99th-percentile LSAT instructor, and the core video lessons are produced by Magoosh's LSAT content team with email tutor support from experienced instructors. Reviewers credit the teaching as clear, concise, and well-organized — one verified student noted the course "summed up the information well and concisely." The consistent criticism is production and presence: Test Prep Insight describes the videos as "dry" and lacking production value, and the standard Premium plan has no live class or on-camera dynamic instruction. The deduction reflects that the teaching is competent and efficient but not the most engaging, and that the human element in the base plan is limited to asynchronous email support.

At $199 for 12 months (plus a one-time $120 LawHub Advantage fee), Magoosh is consistently named the "best budget option" in LSAT prep — roughly a quarter the price of Kaplan ($899+) or Princeton Review ($1,299+), and a flat-fee alternative to the $69–$99/month subscriptions that 7Sage and LSAT Demon charge (which add up fast over a multi-month prep cycle). The +5 point score guarantee with a money-back option and a 7-day no-commitment trial (20 lessons, 40 official questions) lower the risk further. The honest counterweight is the LawHub fee that several reviews omit from the headline price, and the $499 On-Demand Classes tier, which most reviewers consider far weaker value than the base plan. Even so, for official-question access at this price, the value is genuinely strong.

This is Magoosh LSAT's strongest practical feature: through its LSAC partnership and the bundled LawHub Advantage subscription, students get 6,000+ real, official LSAT questions from retired PrepTests, plus timed full-length practice tests and 1,000+ explanation videos. Using only official LSAC content for practice is exactly what the r/LSAT community recommends — third-party "simulated" LSAT questions are widely distrusted, so a platform that wraps its teaching around real PrepTests sidesteps that problem entirely. The limit is tooling depth around the questions: independent reviews call the platform "bare bones" next to 7Sage's analytics, drilling engine, and 99 practice exams, or LSAT Demon's adaptive question recommendations. The questions are excellent; the surrounding drilling and analytics layer is thinner than the premium competition.

Magoosh offers a +5 point score-increase guarantee (refund if not met, with conditions), and verified student testimonials on the Magoosh site report gains such as +5 to a 162, +8 to a 173, and one +12-point jump to a 167. Those are real, but modest-to-solid rather than elite: independent comparisons put 7Sage and LSAT Demon users at an average 8–12 point improvement, ahead of budget and traditional options. The honest community read is that Magoosh moves the middle of the curve effectively — it is well suited to students climbing out of the 140s–150s toward the low-to-mid 160s — but that it lacks published large-scale outcome data and that learners targeting 170+ typically need a deeper drilling platform or a tutor on top of it.

Magoosh GMAT Prep covers all three GMAT Focus Edition sections — Quantitative, Verbal, and Data Insights — across 340+ short on-demand video lessons, and the curriculum was rebuilt after the Focus Edition replaced the classic GMAT on February 1, 2024. The Quant content is the standout: GMAT Club reviewers (Aabhash777, BelronMajes, GMATking94) repeatedly praise it for teaching from the basics and deriving formulas "from root level" rather than asking students to memorise. The consistent content weakness is Verbal, which multiple reviewers call "old," in need of "refurbishment," and structurally confusing with no continuity. Data Insights coverage exists but several students wanted more practice volume there given how central DI now is to the Focus Edition. The slideshow-with-voiceover format is instructionally sound but, as Test Prep Insight notes, "lacks production value."

The lessons are anchored by long-time Magoosh GMAT expert Mike McGarry, whose Quant explanations are described as crisp, well-organised, and conceptually grounded. Reviewers on GMAT Club call the videos "clear, concise" and "easy to consume," and students specifically credit the instruction with teaching strategic shortcuts they would not have found alone ("their lessons were phenomenal and they greatly helped me figure out strategic shortcuts"). The format is voiceover-over-slides with no instructor on screen, which several reviewers find effective but visually flat compared to Manhattan Prep or TTP. The Verbal teaching draws the most criticism: GMATking94 said the "Verbal course seems very old and needs refurbishment," a recurring theme that pulls the instructor score below the Quant-only ceiling it would otherwise reach.

Value is Magoosh's single strongest dimension and the near-universal reason reviewers recommend it. Premium GMAT access runs roughly $199 for 6 months or $249 for 12 months — about one-third the price of Kaplan (~$1,000) and Princeton Review (~$800), and a fraction of premium platforms like TTP or e-GMAT. Payment plans start around $54. GMAT Club reviewers repeatedly use the exact phrase "bang for buck," and Test Prep Insight rated the course 9.1/10 calling it "the best bang for your buck in GMAT prep." A 12-month access window, a 4.5-rated mobile app, a free 7-day trial (30+ lessons, 30 questions), and a tiered score guarantee all reinforce that a low price does not signal a thin product. For budget-conscious or first-attempt test-takers, the value case is hard to beat.

The course includes 1,300+ practice questions, each paired with both a text and a video explanation — a genuinely distinctive feature, since most prep companies do not film an explanation for every single problem. A custom practice tool lets students build targeted quizzes by topic and difficulty. The limitations are real and frequently cited. There are only 2 full-length practice tests, and they are generated from the same question pool as the drills, so heavy users hit repeated questions (reviewer whatsarc flagged "repetitive practice questions"). Several students wanted "more questions in quant," more Data Insights items, and additional mocks. Some also found the Verbal questions diverge from real GMAT difficulty (BelronMajes: "Verbal questions differ significantly from actual test"). It is enough to learn on, but most reviewers pair it with the Official Guide and free official mocks.

Magoosh's own review page documents seven student entries with gains of +100 to +250 points, landing final scores of 700–730, with quotes like "over the last few months, Magoosh improved my score from 490 to 710." The company advertises an average improvement of roughly 90 points and backs a tiered guarantee: up to a 70-point increase for baseline scores below 630, 50 points for 640–690, and 10 points for 700+, or your money back. GMAT Club reviewers report concrete gains of +40 to +140 points and final scores from the high-500s (Focus scale) up to 760 (11Karan, +50). The caveat is honest: the strongest gains cluster around Quant, and a minority flagged the in-product score predictor as inaccurate, so the headline averages should be read as outcomes for committed self-studiers, not guarantees for everyone.