EY vs RTS Labs: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EY (4.2/5) edges ahead of RTS Labs (3.7/5) overall. EY is the better choice for enterprises building AI risk into existing controls. RTS Labs is the stronger option for small US firms testing one idea cheaply. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
EY vs RTS Labs: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EY | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1989 | 2010 |
| HQ | London, UK | Glen Allen, USA |
| Team size | ~400,000 | 100+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.7 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs | The cheapest entry point here, with feasibility tests in place of strategy decks |
| Pricing model | Engagement fees per scope; rates not published | Fixed-scope feasibility work; $25–$49/hr (Clutch band) |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, GDPR | AWS, Azure, Python |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare, Manufacturing |
EY vs RTS Labs: 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.
RTS Labs
RTS Labs, near Richmond, Virginia, says it has 100+ US-based staff (per company website; independently unverifiable); it gives 2010 as its founding year while Clutch lists 2012. Its advice comes as feasibility studies and proofs of concept with a return-on-investment check, instead of roadmaps. Clutch lists $25–$49 an hour and a $5,000+ minimum, the cheapest way on this page to test whether one idea works.
Services and capabilities: EY vs RTS Labs
| Capability | EY | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RTS Labs
| Framework / platform | EY | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | N/A |
| GDPR | ✓ | N/A |
| 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 RTS Labs
| Criterion | EY | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | $5,000+ (Clutch) |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Multi-use-case advisory, Audit or certification, Delivery team | Fixed-scope assessment, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Minimum disclosed |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Accessible |
Target audience comparison: EY vs RTS Labs
| Dimension | EY | RTS Labs |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector | Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare |
| Best use cases | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Testing one AI idea cheaply., Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Fixed-scope assessment |
EY vs RTS Labs: 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 |
| RTS Labs | |
|---|---|
| + | A $5,000+ Clutch minimum is the lowest here |
| + | Tests ideas on real data |
| + | Return-on-investment check included |
| - | No portfolio-level planning |
| - | No EU regulatory work |
| - | Founding year and headcount vary between sources |
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 RTS Labs?
A typical fit: testing one AI idea cheaply.
The cheapest entry point here, with feasibility tests in place of strategy decks. Minimum engagement starts at $5,000+ (Clutch). Works best with clients in Logistics, Financial services, Healthcare, Manufacturing.
Decision matrix: EY vs RTS Labs
| 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 | RTS Labs |
| 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 RTS Labs ($5,000+ (Clutch)) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: EY vs RTS Labs
| Use case | EY fit | RTS Labs fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Testing one AI idea cheaply. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
| Return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. | Limited | Strong | RTS Labs |
Verdict: EY vs RTS Labs
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.
RTS Labs (3.7/5) is worth a look if you need return-on-investment check on a vendor proposal. If your situation matches that, RTS Labs is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
EY vs RTS Labs FAQ
Is EY better than RTS Labs?
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. RTS Labs's strongest advantage: a $5,000+ Clutch minimum is the lowest here.
How do EY and RTS Labs differ in pricing?
EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; rates not published. RTS Labs's pricing: fixed-scope feasibility work; $25–$49/hr (Clutch band) with a minimum engagement of $5,000+ (Clutch). 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 RTS Labs?
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 RTS Labs?
EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. RTS Labs's primary differentiator is: the cheapest entry point here, with feasibility tests in place of strategy decks. They also differ in team size (~400,000 vs 100+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs $5,000+ (Clutch)), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Logistics, Financial services).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.