EY vs PA Consulting: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EY (4.2/5) edges ahead of PA Consulting (4.0/5) overall. EY is the better choice for enterprises building AI risk into existing controls. PA Consulting is the stronger option for UK public bodies wanting advice plus delivery. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
EY vs PA Consulting: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EY | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1989 | 1943 |
| HQ | London, UK | London, UK |
| Team size | ~400,000 | ~3,900 |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs | Advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government |
| 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, GDPR |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer | Public sector, Defense, Healthcare, Energy & utilities, Consumer |
EY vs PA Consulting: 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.
PA Consulting
PA Consulting started in 1943 as Personnel Administration and is now a London-based firm with about 3,900 employees and £753 million in 2024 revenue. Jacobs has owned 65% since 2021, with staff holding the rest. Its AI advice tends to come from teams that also design and build products, especially for government, defense, and health clients in the UK and Nordics. That makes the advice practical, though rarely independent of a build.
Services and capabilities: EY vs PA Consulting
| Capability | EY | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PA Consulting
| Framework / platform | EY | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ✓ |
| Google Cloud | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: EY vs PA Consulting
| Criterion | EY | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PA Consulting
| Dimension | EY | PA Consulting |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector | Public sector, Defense, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | AI planning for UK government departments., Health service AI adoption. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Multi-use-case advisory |
EY vs PA Consulting: 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 |
| PA Consulting | |
|---|---|
| + | Long record with UK government and health clients |
| + | Design and engineering behind the advice |
| + | Partly owned by staff |
| - | Jacobs holds 65%, and one database reports a full acquisition in 2026 that we couldn't confirm |
| - | Advice usually comes packaged with delivery |
| - | Rates not published |
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 PA Consulting?
A typical fit: AI planning for UK government departments.
Advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Defense, Healthcare, Energy & utilities, Consumer.
Decision matrix: EY vs PA Consulting
| 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 PA Consulting (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: EY vs PA Consulting
| Use case | EY fit | PA Consulting fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| AI planning for UK government departments. | Limited | Strong | PA Consulting |
| Health service AI adoption. | Limited | Strong | PA Consulting |
Verdict: EY vs PA Consulting
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.
PA Consulting (4.0/5) is worth a look if you need health service AI adoption. If your situation matches that, PA Consulting is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
EY vs PA Consulting FAQ
Is EY better than PA Consulting?
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. PA Consulting's strongest advantage: long record with UK government and health clients.
How do EY and PA Consulting differ in pricing?
EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; rates not published. PA Consulting'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 PA Consulting?
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 PA Consulting?
EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. PA Consulting's primary differentiator is: advice from teams that also design and build, strong in UK government. They also differ in team size (~400,000 vs ~3,900), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Public sector, Defense).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.