EY vs Slalom: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
EY (4.2/5) edges ahead of Slalom (3.8/5) overall. EY is the better choice for enterprises building AI risk into existing controls. Slalom is the stronger option for north American firms wanting local consultants. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
EY vs Slalom: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | EY | Slalom |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1989 | 2001 |
| HQ | London, UK | Seattle, USA |
| Team size | ~400,000 | 10,000+ |
| Rating | 4.2 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs | Local-office consultants for AI governance and operating models |
| 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 | AWS, Azure, Google Cloud |
| Industries served | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer | Financial services, Healthcare, Retail, Public sector |
EY vs Slalom: 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.
Slalom
Slalom has more than 10,000 employees in over 50 offices and was founded in Seattle in 2001. Its AI and data strategists work on governance and operating models, and a new chief AI officer arrived in August 2026. Close ties with the major cloud and data vendors mean its advice usually points toward those platforms.
Services and capabilities: EY vs Slalom
| Capability | EY | Slalom |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Slalom
| Framework / platform | EY | Slalom |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ✓ |
Pricing comparison: EY vs Slalom
| Criterion | EY | Slalom |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Slalom
| Dimension | EY | Slalom |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Best industries | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector | Financial services, Healthcare, Retail |
| Best use cases | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | AI governance for a North American company., Operating-model changes for AI. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Multi-use-case advisory |
EY vs Slalom: 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 |
| Slalom | |
|---|---|
| + | Local teams for on-site work |
| + | Governance and operating-model experience |
| + | Can build afterward |
| - | Advice leans toward its partner platforms |
| - | Limited EU regulatory depth |
| - | New AI leadership still settling in |
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 Slalom?
A typical fit: AI governance for a North American company.
Local-office consultants for AI governance and operating models. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Financial services, Healthcare, Retail, Public sector.
Decision matrix: EY vs Slalom
| 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 Slalom (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: EY vs Slalom
| Use case | EY fit | Slalom fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Strong | Limited | EY |
| AI governance for a North American company. | Limited | Strong | Slalom |
| Operating-model changes for AI. | Limited | Strong | Slalom |
Verdict: EY vs Slalom
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.
Slalom (3.8/5) is worth a look if you need operating-model changes for AI. If your situation matches that, Slalom is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
EY vs Slalom FAQ
Is EY better than Slalom?
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. Slalom's strongest advantage: local teams for on-site work.
How do EY and Slalom differ in pricing?
EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; rates not published. Slalom'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 Slalom?
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 Slalom?
EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. Slalom's primary differentiator is: local-office consultants for AI governance and operating models. They also differ in team size (~400,000 vs 10,000+), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Financial services, Insurance vs Financial services, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.