The authors analysed school performance data to review how well disadvantaged pupils achieve in academy chains. They included chains only if they had at least three academies in 2013, and two sponsored secondary academies for the whole period from September 2010 to July 2013. This means that academies are included in our analysis only when there has been sufficient time for the sponsor chain to have some impact on performance. They reviewed outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in sponsored secondary school academies across a range of measures, including their results in the best 8 GCSE subjects, progress in English and Maths, and the English Baccalaureate, in addition to the main measure of five good GCSE or equivalents including English and mathematics. This is intended to reflect the stronger focus taken by the coalition on academic subjects, and the change in emphasis in the league tables from 2016. The characteristics of the various chains have also been reviewed in order to explore whether there are any common characteristics across the chains that are more or less successful in promoting the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. Key findings included: (1) There is very significant variation in outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, both between and within chains; and chains differ significantly in attainment against different measures; (2) On average, the improvement for disadvantaged pupils in 5A*CEM in sponsored academies in the analysis group was greater than the average for all mainstream schools between 2011 and 2013. However, there was enormous variation between chains, with only 16 out of 31 exceeding the figure for all mainstream schools in 2013; (3) Additionally, some sponsor chains are managing to raise attainment significantly for young people with low prior attainment--an important demonstration of value; (4) There are five chains that are promoting high attainment for disadvantaged pupils--and indeed for pupils of all types--across a whole range of measures; and (5) However, there are also some chains which are highly ineffective across a range of measures, and which are failing to improve the prospects of their disadvantaged pupils. Review of the chains that have been most successful for disadvantaged students is appended.