When I started fourth year, I thought internal medicine would be a safe backup option if my emergency medicine applications didn’t work out. Then I looked at the actual match statistics and realized that “less competitive” doesn’t mean “easy to match.” Even family medicine, traditionally considered one of the most accessible specialties, had match rates below 95% for some applicant categories.
Understanding residency match statistics isn’t just about satisfying curiosity – it’s about making informed decisions about specialty choice, application strategy, and backup planning. The data reveals not just how competitive different specialties are, but also trends that can guide your preparation and help you position yourself strategically.
The students who use match statistics effectively don’t just look at overall numbers. They understand how data varies by applicant type, geographic preferences, and program characteristics. This nuanced understanding helps them make realistic application plans that maximize their chances of matching into their preferred training environments.
Overall Match Rates
The 2025 Match saw continued trends toward higher competitiveness across most specialties, with overall match rates varying significantly by applicant type and specialty choice.
US Medical Graduates (MD and DO) US medical graduates achieved an overall match rate of approximately 94.2% in 2025, representing a slight decrease from previous years due to increased competitiveness and applications per student.
MD students from LCME-accredited schools matched at rates of 95.8%, while DO students from COCA-accredited schools achieved match rates of 90.4%, reflecting the ongoing integration challenges in the single accreditation system.
First-time applicants consistently outperformed repeat applicants, with first-time US graduates achieving match rates above 95% compared to repeat applicants at approximately 85%.
The gap between MD and DO match rates has narrowed over recent years but persists, particularly in competitive specialties where familiarity with osteopathic training remains limited.
International Medical Graduates International medical graduates (IMGs) faced continued challenges with overall match rates of approximately 62.8% for all IMG applicants combined.
US citizen IMGs achieved higher match rates (70.1%) compared to non-US citizen IMGs (58.3%), reflecting visa requirements and program preferences for candidates without immigration complications.
Canadian graduates matched at rates similar to US graduates (92.5%), reflecting the integration of Canadian and US medical education systems.
Regional variations in IMG success rates reflect program concentrations, with certain geographic areas showing higher acceptance of international graduates.
Factors Affecting Match Success Board scores remained crucial predictors of match success, with score requirements varying significantly by specialty and applicant type.
Research productivity, clinical grades, and letters of recommendation gained importance as programs sought additional differentiators beyond standardized scores.
Geographic flexibility significantly improved match rates across all applicant categories, with candidates applying broadly achieving higher success rates.
Application strategy including program selection, personal statement quality, and interview performance continued to influence match outcomes substantially.
Students who effectively navigated the unmatched process often found success through strategic approaches outlined in resources like our SOAP and Scramble guide, demonstrating that initial match failure doesn’t preclude eventual residency success.
Specialty-Specific Statistics
Match rates vary dramatically by specialty, reflecting differences in competitiveness, position availability, and applicant qualifications.
Highly Competitive Specialties Dermatology remained the most competitive specialty with match rates of 73.2% for US medical graduates and 31.8% for all applicants combined.
Radiation oncology matched 86.1% of US applicants while maintaining extremely high score requirements and research expectations.
Orthopedic surgery achieved match rates of 82.4% for US graduates, with significant variations between different subspecialty tracks.
Ophthalmology matched 84.7% of US applicants, with particularly high research productivity requirements and limited position availability.
Moderately Competitive Specialties Emergency medicine matched 92.3% of US medical graduates, representing increased competitiveness compared to historical trends.
Anesthesiology achieved match rates of 95.1% for US graduates while maintaining strong appeal for lifestyle-focused applicants.
Radiology matched 94.8% of US applicants with growing interest in interventional and subspecialty training.
Psychiatry matched 93.7% of US graduates with increasing recognition of mental health importance and career flexibility.
Primary Care and Less Competitive Specialties Family medicine matched 96.2% of US medical graduates while continuing to fill positions through SOAP and post-match recruitment.
Internal medicine achieved match rates of 97.1% for US applicants, though competitive programs remained highly selective.
Pediatrics matched 95.8% of US graduates with variations based on geographic preferences and subspecialty interests.
Pathology matched 89.4% of US applicants while facing ongoing concerns about specialty attractiveness to medical students.
Surgical Specialties General surgery matched 91.7% of US medical graduates with increasing emphasis on research and clinical performance.
Neurosurgery remained highly competitive at 77.9% match rates for US applicants, requiring exceptional qualifications across all metrics.
Otolaryngology matched 79.3% of US graduates with particularly high Step scores and research productivity requirements.
Plastic surgery achieved match rates of 74.6% for US applicants, with integrated and independent track differences.
Score Requirements
Board score requirements continue to serve as initial screening criteria, though their importance varies by specialty and program type.
USMLE Step 1 (Pass/Fail Impact) The transition to pass/fail Step 1 has shifted emphasis to Step 2 CK scores, clinical grades, and other application components.
Programs report using Step 2 CK scores as primary standardized metrics, with average scores varying significantly by specialty competitiveness.
Some specialties maintain informal Step 1 score expectations for applicants who took the exam before pass/fail implementation.
The long-term impact of Step 1 pass/fail continues to evolve as programs adapt their evaluation criteria and applicant screening processes.
Step 2 CK Score Trends Highly competitive specialties typically expect Step 2 CK scores above 250, with some programs using higher cutoffs for initial screening.
Moderately competitive specialties generally accept scores above 230-240, though higher scores provide advantages in program selection and interview opportunities.
Less competitive specialties may accept lower scores, particularly when combined with strong clinical performance and genuine interest in the field.
Score requirements often vary within specialties based on program prestige, geographic location, and research intensity.
Score Variations by Applicant Type IMG applicants typically need higher scores than US graduates to achieve similar competitiveness, reflecting additional barriers and program preferences.
DO students may need slightly higher scores than MD students in some specialties, though this gap has narrowed with single accreditation implementation.
Repeat applicants often need higher scores than first-time applicants to overcome concerns about previous match failure.
Regional variations exist, with certain geographic areas showing different score expectations based on local competition and program characteristics.
Alternative Metrics Gaining Importance Clinical grades and shelf exam scores have gained prominence as standardized metrics in the post-Step 1 scoring era.
Research productivity including publications, presentations, and grant funding has become increasingly important for competitive specialties.
Leadership experience, community service, and other non-academic factors play larger roles in holistic application review processes.
Letters of recommendation and personal statements receive greater scrutiny as programs seek to differentiate between academically similar candidates.
International Medical Graduate Data
IMG match statistics reveal ongoing challenges and strategies for international graduates seeking US residency training.
Overall IMG Performance International medical graduates matched at rates of 62.8% overall, with significant variations based on citizenship status, home country, and specialty choice.
US citizen IMGs achieved higher match rates (70.1%) compared to non-US citizen IMGs (58.3%), reflecting visa considerations and program preferences.
IMG match rates have remained relatively stable over recent years, though competition has intensified with increasing numbers of international applicants.
Regional medical graduate performance varies significantly, with some international medical schools achieving higher match rates than others.
Specialty Preferences and Success IMGs show higher match rates in primary care specialties including internal medicine (78.2%), family medicine (71.4%), and pediatrics (69.7%).
Competitive specialties remain challenging for IMGs, with match rates below 30% in dermatology, radiation oncology, and orthopedic surgery.
Some specialties including psychiatry (65.3%) and pathology (58.9%) provide moderate opportunities for well-qualified international graduates.
Geographic clustering occurs with certain regions showing higher IMG acceptance rates and established international graduate communities.
Preparation and Strategy Factors Higher USMLE scores are typically required for IMG success, with competitive specialties expecting scores above the 75th percentile.
Clinical experience in the US through observerships, externships, or research significantly improves IMG match prospects.
Strong letters of recommendation from US physicians, particularly department faculty, provide crucial support for IMG applications.
Research productivity and publications help IMGs demonstrate commitment and competitiveness in their chosen specialties.
Visa and Immigration Considerations J-1 visa availability affects IMG match opportunities, with some programs unable to sponsor certain visa types.
H-1B visa requirements and lottery systems create uncertainty for non-US citizen IMGs planning residency training.
Permanent residency status significantly improves IMG competitiveness by removing visa-related barriers and concerns.
Immigration policy changes can substantially impact IMG match opportunities and long-term career planning.
Trends and Changes
Understanding recent trends in match statistics helps predict future changes and inform strategic planning for current medical students.
Increasing Competition Across Specialties Overall competitiveness has increased across most specialties, with traditionally “safe” options becoming more challenging to match.
Application numbers per student have increased, leading to more applications per position and lower match rates in many specialties.
Score inflation has occurred in some specialties as students achieve higher board scores while position numbers remain relatively stable.
Geographic preferences have intensified competition in desirable locations while creating opportunities in underserved areas.
Shift in Evaluation Criteria Step 2 CK scores have gained prominence following Step 1’s transition to pass/fail, becoming the primary standardized screening metric.
Clinical performance indicators including grades, evaluations, and shelf exam scores receive increased attention from programs.
Research requirements have intensified for competitive specialties, with publication expectations rising substantially.
Holistic review processes emphasize non-academic factors including diversity, service, and personal experiences.
Technology and Process Changes Virtual interviews became standard during COVID-19 and continue in many programs, affecting applicant strategy and program evaluation.
Electronic application systems have streamlined some processes while creating new challenges in application management and review.
Social media and online presence increasingly influence program impressions of applicants, requiring careful attention to digital professionalism.
Data analytics and algorithmic screening tools are being adopted by some programs for initial application review.
Demographic and Social Factors Increased emphasis on diversity and inclusion has affected program selection criteria and evaluation processes.
Mental health awareness has influenced both applicant choices and program support systems.
Work-life balance considerations have gained importance in specialty selection and program evaluation.
Economic factors including educational debt and earning potential continue to influence specialty choice patterns.
Strategic Implications
Understanding match statistics should inform strategic decision-making throughout medical school rather than just during application preparation.
Specialty Selection Strategy Use match statistics to inform realistic specialty choices based on your academic performance and competitiveness.
Consider backup specialties and alternative pathways rather than focusing solely on highly competitive first choices.
Evaluate whether your qualifications align with typical successful applicants in your preferred specialties.
Balance passion and interest with realistic assessment of match probability and career satisfaction potential.
Application Planning Apply broadly within chosen specialties rather than limiting applications to only prestigious or geographically preferred programs.
Consider geographic flexibility as a strategy for improving match prospects, particularly in competitive specialties.
Plan application timelines to allow for adequate preparation including research, clinical experiences, and relationship building.
Develop backup plans including preliminary years, alternative specialties, and post-graduation options.
Academic Preparation Focus on achieving competitive board scores while understanding that scores alone don’t guarantee match success.
Prioritize clinical performance and relationships that lead to strong letters of recommendation.
Pursue meaningful research experiences that demonstrate commitment and productivity rather than just participation.
Build diverse experiences that demonstrate well-roundedness and genuine interest in chosen specialties.
Long-Term Career Planning Understand that match outcomes don’t determine ultimate career success or satisfaction.
Consider how different training pathways might achieve similar long-term career goals.
Maintain perspective about the importance of match prestige versus quality of training and personal fit.
Prepare for the possibility of alternative pathways while remaining optimistic about traditional residency training.
Match statistics provide valuable insights for strategic planning, but they shouldn’t become sources of anxiety or deterministic predictors of your future. The data reflects trends and probabilities, not individual destinies.
Use statistics to make informed decisions while remembering that successful physicians come from all types of training programs and career paths. Your commitment to excellence, patient care, and professional growth matters more than where you train or how long it takes to reach your goals.
Ready to use match statistics strategically for your residency planning? Ace Med Boards provides comprehensive guidance that helps medical students interpret data effectively while developing realistic, successful application strategies that maximize their chances of matching into fulfilling training programs.
