The Warwick program probably recruits a (slightly) older, more experienced cohort, so that will affect salaries.

Both are generally aimed at those in established career paths who don't want to make substantial leaps in their career.

The Warwick program, according to the most recent EMBA ranking from the FT, is ranked pretty well for careers and shows a decent salary increase. No comparable stats are available for the Manchester program, but I'd imagine salaries are a bit lower given the relative experience level of the cohorts.

Thank you for your input.
There is one thing that make me more confused but I don’t know if it is relevant or not, The Warwick university ranking 77 worldwide is lower than Manchester 55 based on times higher education ranking. However, I have reviewed many FT rankings (European business school and Global MBA) which show that MBA in Warwick is a bit better than Manchester MBA.

I think it's important to focus on your goals and needs. The Manchester programme is more like a full time MBA, because it has a strong, extensive set of core courses and a lots of project work. The Warwick EMBA is much more compressed and is aimed more a senior managers.

However, I have reviewed many FT rankings (European business school and Global MBA) which show that MBA in Warwick is a bit better than Manchester MBA.

The European Business School ranking isn't gauged on a particular program but the combined strength of all of a school's ranked programs.

I think the other person is trying to work around the fact that the MBS Global MBA is not in a ranking because it lacks the cohort structure needed by the FT rankings.