Trilateral Research vs Eticas: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
Trilateral Research (4.3/5) edges ahead of Eticas (4.0/5) overall. Trilateral Research is the better choice for public bodies needing rights and ethics assessments. 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.
Trilateral Research vs Eticas: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | Trilateral Research | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2004 | 2012 |
| HQ | London, UK | Barcelona, Spain |
| Team size | 55–200 | 11–50 |
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.0 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm | Independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use |
| Pricing model | Project fees; rates on request | Audit fees and platform subscriptions; rates on request |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, GDPR, ISO/IEC 42001 | EU AI Act, GDPR, ITACA |
| Industries served | Public sector, Law enforcement, Healthcare, Financial services | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services, Social services |
Trilateral Research vs Eticas: overview
Trilateral Research
Trilateral Research was established in 2004 and is headquartered in London, with an Irish operations center in Waterford. It began in research and data protection and now advises on responsible AI, including fundamental rights impact assessments of the kind the EU AI Act requires for some high-risk deployments. Directory estimates of its size range from about 55 to 200 people. It also builds its own ethical AI software, mostly for public-sector and law-enforcement users.
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: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
| Capability | Trilateral Research | 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: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
| Framework / platform | Trilateral Research | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | N/A | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | N/A | N/A |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | ✓ | N/A |
| Azure | N/A | N/A |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
| Criterion | Trilateral Research | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Ongoing advisory | Audit or certification, Ongoing advisory |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
| Dimension | Trilateral Research | Eticas |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Startup to mid-market | Startup to mid-market |
| Best industries | Public sector, Law enforcement, Healthcare | Public sector, Healthcare, Financial services |
| Best use cases | Fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI., Ethics reviews of public-sector AI systems. | Bias audits of public-sector algorithms., Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Audit or certification |
Trilateral Research vs Eticas: pros and cons
| Trilateral Research | |
|---|---|
| + | Two decades of research on ethics and data protection |
| + | Fundamental rights impact assessments are a core skill |
| + | Independent of the big cloud and software vendors |
| - | Small team for large multi-country programs |
| - | Builds its own software, which can shape recommendations |
| - | Less focus on cost modeling or business cases |
| 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 Trilateral Research?
A typical fit: fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI.
Fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm. Minimum engagement is not publicly disclosed. Works best with clients in Public sector, Law enforcement, Healthcare, Financial services.
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: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
| Your situation | Recommended choice |
|---|---|
| You want advice with no build contract attached | Both keep advice separable from delivery |
| 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 | Eticas |
| You want the same firm to build what it recommends | Neither; budget for a separate build partner |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: Trilateral Research (Not disclosed) vs Eticas (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | Trilateral Research |
Use case fit: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
| Use case | Trilateral Research fit | Eticas fit | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI. | Strong | Limited | Trilateral Research |
| Ethics reviews of public-sector AI systems. | Strong | Limited | Trilateral Research |
| Bias audits of public-sector algorithms. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
| Ongoing monitoring of a deployed AI system. | Limited | Strong | Eticas |
Verdict: Trilateral Research vs Eticas
Trilateral Research (4.3/5) is the stronger overall choice for most AI Advisory projects. Fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm.
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
Trilateral Research vs Eticas FAQ
Is Trilateral Research better than Eticas?
Trilateral Research (4.3/5) scores higher overall, but "better" depends on your use case. Trilateral Research's strongest advantage: two decades of research on ethics and data protection. Eticas's strongest advantage: audits come from outside the team that built the system.
How do Trilateral Research and Eticas differ in pricing?
Trilateral Research's pricing: project fees; rates on request. 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: Trilateral Research or Eticas?
Trilateral Research 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 Trilateral Research and Eticas?
Trilateral Research's primary differentiator is: fundamental rights and ethics impact assessments from a research-led firm. Eticas's primary differentiator is: independent algorithmic audits that measure bias and accuracy in real use. They also differ in team size (55–200 vs 11–50), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Public sector, Law enforcement vs Public sector, Healthcare).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.