EY vs Futurice: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EY (4.2/5) edges ahead of Futurice (3.9/5) overall. EY is the better choice for enterprises building AI risk into existing controls. Futurice is the stronger option for nordic firms redesigning services around AI. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
EY vs Futurice: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EY | Futurice |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1989 | 2000 |
| HQ | London, UK | Helsinki, Finland |
| Team size | ~400,000 | 800+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs | AI strategy combined with service design and operating-model work |
| 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 | Azure, AWS, Google Cloud |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer | Retail, Media, Public sector, Manufacturing, Financial services |
EY vs Futurice: 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.
Futurice
Futurice was founded in Helsinki in 2000 and says it has more than 800 people across Europe. Its strategy and renewal team runs AI strategy and operating-model work with executives, and design teams shape how people will actually use the result. Engineering follows if the client wants it. The approach suits Nordic companies that see AI as a service-design problem as much as a technical one.
Services and capabilities: EY vs Futurice
| Capability | EY | Futurice |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Futurice
| Framework / platform | EY | Futurice |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | N/A |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | ✓ | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | N/A | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS | N/A | ✓ |
| Google Cloud | N/A | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: EY vs Futurice
| Criterion | EY | Futurice |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Multi-use-case advisory, Audit or certification, Delivery team | Multi-use-case advisory, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: EY vs Futurice
| Dimension | EY | Futurice |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector | Retail, Media, Public sector |
| Best use cases | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Redesigning a customer service around AI., Operating-model change for AI adoption. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Multi-use-case advisory |
EY vs Futurice: 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 |
| Futurice | |
|---|---|
| + | Design-led thinking about how staff and customers use AI |
| + | Works with executives on operating models |
| + | Can build afterward |
| - | Governance and regulation are less central to its offer |
| - | Ownership details are not recently published |
| - | Advice often leads into its own delivery |
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 Futurice?
A typical fit: redesigning a customer service around AI.
AI strategy combined with service design and operating-model work. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Retail, Media, Public sector, Manufacturing, Financial services.
Decision matrix: EY vs Futurice
| 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 | EY |
| 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 Futurice (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: EY vs Futurice
| Use case | EY fit | Futurice fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Redesigning a customer service around AI. | Limited | Strong | Futurice |
| Operating-model change for AI adoption. | Limited | Strong | Futurice |
Verdict: EY vs Futurice
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.
Futurice (3.9/5) is worth a look if you need operating-model change for AI adoption. If your situation matches that, Futurice is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
EY vs Futurice FAQ
Is EY better than Futurice?
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. Futurice's strongest advantage: design-led thinking about how staff and customers use AI.
How do EY and Futurice differ in pricing?
EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; rates not published. Futurice'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 Futurice?
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 Futurice?
EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. Futurice's primary differentiator is: AI strategy combined with service design and operating-model work. They also differ in team size (~400,000 vs 800+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Retail, Media).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.