CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Exam Analysis Jan 2026 by Anurag Chauhan Sir

CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Exam Analysis Jan 2026 by Anurag Sir presents a comprehensive and structured review of the January 2026 examination. The analysis is based on a detailed question-by-question evaluation of the paper, combined with valuable feedback received from students who appeared for the exam. 

It provides a clear overview of the overall difficulty level and highlights the paper’s balance between conceptual understanding and practical application. This analysis of the CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Exam will help students gain clarity on the exam structure, key challenges, and expected preparation standards for future attempts.

Enroll Now for CA Foundation Courses

CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Exam Analysis Jan 2026 - Overall Overview

The CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude paper for January 2026 was generally assessed as being between Easy and Moderate. While not entirely straightforward due to some intentionally twisted questions, it was certainly not a difficult paper overall.

• Achievable Score: A student with sound preparation could easily score 55+ marks. Even with minimal study, reaching the passing threshold of 40 marks should not have been a significant challenge. Scores in the 30-35 range suggest notable gaps in preparation.

• Analysis for Non-Maths Students: Excluding topics traditionally challenging for non-maths students (such as Calculus, Probability, Theoretical Distribution, and Sets), approximately 44 easily achievable questions were present within the 80-mark Mathematics and Statistics section. When combined with Logical Reasoning, this provided a strong foundation for passing the examination.

• Link to Revision Sessions: A substantial number of questions were either directly from or very similar to problems covered during marathon revision sessions. This included questions with identical structures but different numerical values, highlighting the effectiveness of focused revision.

Chapter-wise CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Exam Analysis

The CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Jan 2026 paper exhibited varied difficulty across different chapters. The following table provides a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the 80 questions from the Mathematics and Statistics sections, indicating the distribution of easy, moderate, and difficult questions (excluding Logical Reasoning, which is discussed separately).

 Key Observations:

• Equations: All three questions were Moderate, requiring calculation rather than direct option-based solutions, such as one involving an infinite series under a square root.

• Time Value of Money: While mostly easy, three questions were indirect or twisted, demanding careful conceptual application.

• Calculus: The difficulty here was notably shifted, with three moderate questions and only one easy, direct definite integral.

• Logical Reasoning (LR): The entire 20-question LR section was considered Easy, with straightforward and quickly solvable problems.

• Central Tendency & Dispersion: A question on Combined Standard Deviation was categorized as Moderate due to its lengthy formula and calculation, alongside a Combined Mean question.

• Probability: Three out of six questions were considered difficult, posing a challenge even for prepared students.

• Theoretical Distribution: Four out of five questions were notably simple and easy.

CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude Exam 2026 Analysis of Specific Questions & Concepts

This section explores some notable questions and concepts that appeared in the examination, highlighting their unique aspects or potential for confusion.

Comparative Structure: Stratified vs. Cluster Sampling

A particular question on sampling methods caused confusion among many students.

• The Question: A market researcher divides a city into 5 regions. The variation within each region is little, while the variation between the regions is maximum.

• Common Mistake: Many students incorrectly identified this as "Cluster Sampling."

• Correct Analysis: The correct answer is Stratified Sampling. The defining characteristics distinguish the two methods:

The question explicitly states "variation within the region is little" and "maximum variation between the regions," which perfectly matches the definition of Stratified Sampling.

Examples of Other Notable Questions:

• Valuation of Bond (Finance): This was an indirect question. Instead of asking for the bond's current value given the face value, it provided the purchase price (₹97) and asked for the face value. This required either working backward with options or setting up an equation, making it a moderate-level, time-consuming problem.

• Sinking Fund (Finance): A question similar to those covered in study modules and revision sessions appeared. It involved calculating the future amount needed for asset replacement, accounting for cost escalation and scrap value. The underlying concept was familiar, though the numerical values differed.

• Relation between Arithmetic Mean (AM), Geometric Mean (GM), Harmonic Mean (HM): A direct question asked to find the Geometric Mean, given the Arithmetic Mean (64) and Harmonic Mean (16), using the property GM² = AM × HM. This exact type of problem was heavily emphasized in morning revision sessions.

• Mode from Mean & Median: A question required finding the Mode, given the Mean (21) and Median (25), using the empirical relationship: Mode = 3(Median) - 2(Mean). This formula was repeatedly highlighted as an important concept.

• Theoretical Distribution: The paper included two very easy questions from Binomial Distribution:

1. • Given n and p, find the Mean (np).

   • Given the Mean and Standard Deviation, find n.

• Sum of an Infinite Geometric Progression (GP): A direct formula-based question (S = a / (1 - r)) was present in the Sequence & Series section.

Final Takeaways for CA Foundation Aspirants

This post-exam analysis aims to provide clarity on the CA Foundation Quantitative Aptitude paper's structure and difficulty. It is essential for students to honestly assess their performance and preparation. If scores are lower than expected despite the paper being manageable, it is important to acknowledge any gaps in the study strategy. 

Regardless of this paper's outcome, students should focus fully on their next examination, Economics, to finish the exam cycle strong. For future attempts, use this experience to understand past mistakes and commit to a disciplined, sincere effort.