EY vs Eticas: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EY (4.2/5) edges ahead of Eticas (4.0/5) overall. EY is the better choice for enterprises building AI risk into existing 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.
EY vs Eticas: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EY | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1989 | 2012 |
| HQ | London, UK | Barcelona, Spain |
| Team size | ~400,000 | 11–50 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs | Independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use |
| Pricing model | Engagement fees per scope; 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 | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services |
EY vs Eticas: 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.
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: EY vs Eticas
| Capability | EY | 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: EY vs Eticas
| Framework / platform | EY | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | 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: EY vs Eticas
| Criterion | EY | 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: EY vs Eticas
| Dimension | EY | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Bias audits of public-sector algorithms., Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Audit or certification |
EY vs Eticas: 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 |
| 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 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 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: EY 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 | EY |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: EY (Not disclosed) vs Eticas (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: EY vs Eticas
| Use case | EY fit | Eticas fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Bias audits of public-sector algorithms. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
| Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
Verdict: EY vs Eticas
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.
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
EY vs Eticas FAQ
Is EY better than Eticas?
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. Eticas's strongest advantage: audits come from outside the team that built the system.
How do EY and Eticas differ in pricing?
EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; 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: EY or Eticas?
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 Eticas?
EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. Eticas's primary differentiator is: independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. They also differ in team size (~400,000 vs 11–50), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.