Deloitte vs Eticas: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Deloitte (4.3/5) edges ahead of Eticas (4.0/5) overall. Deloitte is the better choice for large regulated groups needing documented AI controls. Eticas is the stronger option for public bodies auditing deployed algorithms. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
Deloitte vs Eticas: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Deloitte | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1845 | 2012 |
| HQ | London, UK | Barcelona, Spain |
| Team size | 460,000+ | 11–50 |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Regulatory and audit teams beside the AI advisers, with global reach | Independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use |
| Pricing model | Program fees; rates not published | Audit fees and platform subscriptions; rates on request |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, GDPR | EU AI Act, GDPR, ITACA |
| Industries served | Banking, Insurance, Healthcare, Government & public sector, Energy | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services |
Deloitte vs Eticas: overview
Deloitte
With more than 460,000 people and roots in an 1845 London accounting practice, Deloitte has the widest reach of any firm on this list. Its AI advisory sits next to risk and regulatory teams, which helps banks, insurers, and health systems that must document how each model is governed. Deliverables tend to be thorough and heavy. Expect large teams, long timelines, and a natural path into Deloitte's own implementation work.
Eticas
Eticas was founded by Gemma Galdon-Clavell, who led it from research on surveillance and urban policy into algorithmic auditing. A 2019 profile put the team at about 30 people, and current directory estimates range from 11 to 50. Its audits trace the rules behind a system, measure disparate impact on specific groups, and check accuracy in operation, while its ITACA platform adds ongoing monitoring. The firm checks AI that already exists rather than planning new programs.
Services and capabilities: Deloitte vs Eticas
| Capability | Deloitte | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness assessment | ✓ | ✗ |
| Use-case prioritization | ✗ | ✗ |
| TCO / ROI modeling | ✗ | ✗ |
| AI governance & EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| Build vs. buy advice | ✗ | ✗ |
| Independent audit or assurance | ✓ | ✓ |
| Roadmap any vendor can implement | ✗ | ✗ |
| Delivery capability after advice | ✓ | ✗ |
Frameworks and platforms: Deloitte vs Eticas
| Framework / platform | Deloitte | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | ✓ | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | ✓ | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | N/A | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Deloitte vs Eticas
| Criterion | Deloitte | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Multi-use-case advisory, Audit or certification, Delivery team | Audit or certification, Ongoing advisory |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Deloitte vs Eticas
| Dimension | Deloitte | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Banking, Insurance, Healthcare | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | Model governance documentation for a bank or insurer., Group-wide AI policy across many countries. | Bias audits of public-sector algorithms., Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Audit or certification |
Deloitte vs Eticas: pros and cons
| Deloitte | |
|---|---|
| + | Widest geographic reach on this list |
| + | Change and workforce programs are mature |
| + | Regulators know its methods |
| - | Slow and expensive for a mid-size company's first assessment |
| - | Advice often leads into Deloitte's own delivery work |
| - | Audit-client independence rules apply |
| Eticas | |
|---|---|
| + | Audits come from outside the team that built the system |
| + | Measures bias for specific groups, beyond overall averages |
| + | Ongoing monitoring through its ITACA platform |
| - | Founding date and headquarters vary across sources |
| - | Small team |
| - | Doesn't plan AI portfolios or business cases |
Who should choose Deloitte?
A typical fit: model governance documentation for a bank or insurer.
Regulatory and audit teams beside the AI advisers, with global reach. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Banking, Insurance, Healthcare, Government & public sector, Energy.
Who should choose Eticas?
A typical fit: bias audits of public-sector algorithms.
Independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services.
Decision matrix: Deloitte vs Eticas
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Eticas |
| Finance needs run costs before approving anything | Neither lists cost modeling; ask for a sample |
| Some of your use cases may be high-risk under the EU AI Act | Both cover AI Act classification |
| You need an outside check on a system already built | Both offer audit or assurance |
| You want the same firm to build what it recommends | Deloitte |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Deloitte (Not disclosed) vs Eticas (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | Deloitte |
Use case fit: Deloitte vs Eticas
| Use case | Deloitte fit | Eticas fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model governance documentation for a bank or insurer. | Strong | Limited | Deloitte |
| Group-wide AI policy across many countries. | Strong | Limited | Deloitte |
| Bias audits of public-sector algorithms. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
| Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
Verdict: Deloitte vs Eticas
Deloitte (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Regulatory and audit teams beside the AI advisers, with global reach.
Eticas (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. If your situation matches that, Eticas is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
Deloitte vs Eticas FAQ
Is Deloitte better than Eticas?
Deloitte (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Deloitte's strongest advantage: widest geographic reach on this list. Eticas's strongest advantage: audits come from outside the team that built the system.
How do Deloitte and Eticas differ in pricing?
Deloitte's pricing: program fees; rates not published. Eticas's pricing: audit fees and platform subscriptions; rates on request. Any hourly bands shown come from Clutch, not a published rate card, so a scoping call is still needed for a project quote.
Which is better for enterprise: Deloitte or Eticas?
Deloitte is the larger team and typically the better enterprise-scale choice. For very large programmes, verify team size and compliance coverage directly with each firm before shortlisting.
What are the main differences between Deloitte and Eticas?
Deloitte's primary differentiator is: regulatory and audit teams beside the AI advisers, with global reach. Eticas's primary differentiator is: independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. They also differ in team size (460,000+ vs 11–50), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Banking, Insurance vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.