EY vs Artefact: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EY (4.2/5) edges ahead of Artefact (4.2/5) overall. EY is the better choice for enterprises building AI risk into existing controls. Artefact is the stronger option for large consumer brands across European markets. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
EY vs Artefact: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EY | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1989 | 2014 |
| HQ | London, UK | Paris, France |
| Team size | ~400,000 | 1,700+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs | Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm |
| Pricing model | Engagement fees per scope; rates not published | Consulting fees; rates not published |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, GDPR | EU AI Act, GDPR, Google Cloud |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom |
EY vs Artefact: overview
EY
EY was formed by the 1989 merger of Ernst & Whinney and Arthur Young and employs about 400,000 people. Its advisory teams cover responsible AI, AI risk, and compliance programs, and its technology risk leaders have spoken publicly about how far real AI assurance still has to go. That candor is useful for buyers who want an honest view of what can be certified today. Like the rest of the Big Four, it sells implementation as well.
Artefact
Since its founding in Paris in 2014, Artefact has grown to more than 1,700 people in 25 countries. Cinven bought a majority stake in 2025 at a valuation above €1 billion, and the firm plans to triple in size by 2030, partly through acquisitions. Its advisory partners handle data governance and AI planning for large consumer brands. The same firm then builds, which is efficient but less neutral than a pure adviser.
Services and capabilities: EY vs Artefact
| Capability | EY | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| 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: EY vs Artefact
| Framework / platform | EY | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | ✓ | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | N/A | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | N/A | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: EY vs Artefact
| Criterion | EY | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Multi-use-case advisory, Audit or certification, Delivery team | Multi-use-case advisory, Ongoing advisory, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: EY vs Artefact
| Dimension | EY | Artefact |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector | Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury |
| Best use cases | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Data governance before scaling marketing AI., AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Multi-use-case advisory |
EY vs Artefact: pros and cons
| EY | |
|---|---|
| + | Ties AI risk to controls frameworks finance teams already use |
| + | Realistic public view on the limits of AI assurance |
| + | Large global bench |
| - | Premium fees |
| - | Sells delivery alongside advice |
| - | Audit-client independence rules apply |
| Artefact | |
|---|---|
| + | Data governance is a core practice |
| + | Advisers and engineers share one firm |
| + | Present in 25 countries |
| - | Majority-owned by Cinven since 2025, with acquisition-led growth ahead |
| - | Advice tends to lead to its own delivery work |
| - | Best suited to large brands |
Who should choose EY?
A typical fit: adding AI risk to an existing controls framework.
AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer.
Who should choose Artefact?
A typical fit: data governance before scaling marketing AI.
Data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Consumer goods, Retail, Luxury, Financial services, Telecom.
Decision matrix: EY vs Artefact
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Neither; write the build as a separate decision |
| 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 | EY |
| You want the same firm to build what it recommends | Both can deliver |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: EY (Not disclosed) vs Artefact (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: EY vs Artefact
| Use case | EY fit | Artefact fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Data governance before scaling marketing AI. | Limited | Strong | Artefact |
| AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. | Limited | Strong | Artefact |
Verdict: EY vs Artefact
EY (4.2/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs.
Artefact (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need AI planning for a consumer brand in many EU markets. If your situation matches that, Artefact is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
EY vs Artefact FAQ
Is EY better than Artefact?
EY (4.2/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. EY's strongest advantage: ties AI risk to controls frameworks finance teams already use. Artefact's strongest advantage: data governance is a core practice.
How do EY and Artefact differ in pricing?
EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; rates not published. Artefact's pricing: consulting fees; rates not published. 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: EY or Artefact?
EY 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 EY and Artefact?
EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. Artefact's primary differentiator is: data governance and AI planning with engineers in the same firm. They also differ in team size (~400,000 vs 1,700+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Consumer goods, Retail).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.