Many studies of M&A performance suggest that most fail, using a wide range of methods and criteria for evaluation but based on the general assumption that they aim to maximise value. M&A are also studied at different levels of analysis, notably from strategy, CEO and macro perspectives and yet performance studies have not yet integrated these in a single analysis. This paper draws upon these three levels to create an M&A typology that can then be tested using a CAAR methodology. Results indicate significant differences in performance by M&A type. This suggests that each of the levels of analysis matters and in particular that context plays a crucial role. Our evidence suggests that, contrary to current M&A performance dogma, M&As with a classical strategy and good agent CEO during a boom period, out perform the market and other M&A deals.