KPMG vs Eticas: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
KPMG (4.6/5) edges ahead of Eticas (4.0/5) overall. KPMG is the better choice for regulated firms needing audit-grade AI governance. 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.
KPMG vs Eticas: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | KPMG | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1987 | 2012 |
| HQ | London, UK (KPMG International) | Barcelona, Spain |
| Team size | 275,000+ | 11–50 |
| Rating | 4.6 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Governance and assurance depth, backed by its own ISO/IEC 42001-certified AI management system | 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, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF | EU AI Act, GDPR, ITACA |
| Industries served | Banking, Insurance, Public sector, Healthcare, Energy, Manufacturing | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services |
KPMG vs Eticas: overview
KPMG
KPMG was formed in 1987 through the merger of Peat Marwick International and Klynveld Main Goerdeler, and its member firms employ around 275,000 people. In December 2025 KPMG International announced ISO/IEC 42001 certification for its own AI management system, audited by Schellman; member firms in Australia, Spain, India, and the US had certified earlier. Its Trusted AI approach covers governance design, risk classification under the EU AI Act, controls testing, and assurance. For a CFO or chief risk officer who needs advice that an audit committee will accept, few firms have a larger bench. Auditor-independence rules can bar it from advising its own audit clients. Check that first.
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: KPMG vs Eticas
| Capability | KPMG | 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: KPMG vs Eticas
| Framework / platform | KPMG | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | ✓ | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | ✓ | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | ✓ | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | N/A |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: KPMG vs Eticas
| Criterion | KPMG | 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: KPMG vs Eticas
| Dimension | KPMG | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Banking, Insurance, Public sector | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | Designing an AI governance framework that an audit committee will sign off., Classifying an AI portfolio under the EU AI Act across several countries. | Bias audits of public-sector algorithms., Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Audit or certification |
KPMG vs Eticas: pros and cons
| KPMG | |
|---|---|
| + | Runs its own certified AI management system, so it advises from first-hand experience of ISO/IEC 42001 |
| + | Risk, audit, and regulatory specialists work in one network |
| + | Can carry governance work across dozens of countries |
| + | Assurance work is set up to satisfy audit committees and regulators |
| - | Auditor-independence rules may stop it advising its own audit clients |
| - | Fees and team sizes suit large organizations more than mid-size ones |
| - | The same network sells implementation, so ask how advice and delivery are separated |
| 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 KPMG?
A typical fit: designing an AI governance framework that an audit committee will sign off.
Governance and assurance depth, backed by its own ISO/IEC 42001-certified AI management system. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Banking, Insurance, Public sector, Healthcare, Energy, Manufacturing.
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: KPMG vs Eticas
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Eticas |
| Finance needs run costs before approving anything | KPMG |
| 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 | KPMG |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: KPMG (Not disclosed) vs Eticas (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | KPMG |
Use case fit: KPMG vs Eticas
| Use case | KPMG fit | Eticas fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Designing an AI governance framework that an audit committee will sign off. | Strong | Limited | KPMG |
| Classifying an AI portfolio under the EU AI Act across several countries. | Strong | Limited | KPMG |
| Bias audits of public-sector algorithms. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
| Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
Verdict: KPMG vs Eticas
KPMG (4.6/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Governance and assurance depth, backed by its own ISO/IEC 42001-certified AI management system.
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
KPMG vs Eticas FAQ
Is KPMG better than Eticas?
KPMG (4.6/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. KPMG's strongest advantage: runs its own certified AI management system, so it advises from first-hand experience of ISO/IEC 42001. Eticas's strongest advantage: audits come from outside the team that built the system.
How do KPMG and Eticas differ in pricing?
KPMG'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: KPMG or Eticas?
KPMG 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 KPMG and Eticas?
KPMG's primary differentiator is: governance and assurance depth, backed by its own ISO/IEC 42001-certified AI management system. Eticas's primary differentiator is: independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. They also differ in team size (275,000+ vs 11–50), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Banking, Insurance vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.