KPMG vs EY: full comparison for 2026
Quick verdict
KPMG (4.6/5) edges ahead of EY (4.2/5) overall. KPMG is the better choice for regulated firms needing audit-grade AI governance. EY is the stronger option for enterprises building AI risk into existing controls. The right choice depends on how independent you need the advice to be, your regulatory exposure, and your budget.
KPMG vs EY: head-to-head summary
| Criterion | KPMG | EY |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1987 | 1989 |
| HQ | London, UK (KPMG International) | London, UK |
| Team size | 275,000+ | ~400,000 |
| Rating | 4.6 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 |
| Primary differentiator | Governance and assurance depth, backed by its own ISO/IEC 42001-certified AI management system | AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs |
| Pricing model | Engagement fees per scope; rates not published | Engagement fees per scope; rates not published |
| Min. engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Primary tech stack | EU AI Act, ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF | EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, GDPR |
| Industries served | Banking, Insurance, Public sector, Healthcare, Energy, Manufacturing | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector, Energy, Consumer |
KPMG vs EY: 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.
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.
Services and capabilities: KPMG vs EY
| Capability | KPMG | EY |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EY
| Framework / platform | KPMG | EY |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| DORA | ✓ | N/A |
| NIST AI RMF | ✓ | ✓ |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | ✓ | N/A |
| Azure | ✓ | ✓ |
| AWS | N/A | N/A |
| Google Cloud | N/A | N/A |
Pricing comparison: KPMG vs EY
| Criterion | KPMG | EY |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum engagement | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Engagement models | Fixed-scope assessment, Multi-use-case advisory, Audit or certification, Delivery team | Fixed-scope assessment, Multi-use-case advisory, Audit or certification, Delivery team |
| Rate transparency | Not public | Not public |
| Price tier | Mid-market | Mid-market |
Target audience comparison: KPMG vs EY
| Dimension | KPMG | EY |
|---|---|---|
| Best company size | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Best industries | Banking, Insurance, Public sector | Financial services, Insurance, Public sector |
| 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. | Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework., Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. |
| Typical project type | Fixed-scope assessment | Fixed-scope assessment |
KPMG vs EY: 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 |
| 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 |
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 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.
Decision matrix: KPMG vs EY
| 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 | 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 | Both can deliver |
| Your budget is at the lower end | Compare: KPMG (Not disclosed) vs EY (Not disclosed) |
| You need advisers in many countries at once | EY |
Use case fit: KPMG vs EY
| Use case | KPMG fit | EY 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 |
| Adding AI risk to an existing controls framework. | Limited | Strong | EY |
| Responsible AI policies for a large insurer. | Limited | Strong | EY |
Verdict: KPMG vs EY
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.
EY (4.2/5) is worth a look if you need responsible AI policies for a large insurer. If your situation matches that, EY is a competitive option.
Related comparisons
KPMG vs EY FAQ
Is KPMG better than EY?
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. EY's strongest advantage: ties AI risk to controls frameworks finance teams already use.
How do KPMG and EY differ in pricing?
KPMG's pricing: engagement fees per scope; rates not published. EY's pricing: engagement fees per scope; 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: KPMG or EY?
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 KPMG and EY?
KPMG's primary differentiator is: governance and assurance depth, backed by its own ISO/IEC 42001-certified AI management system. EY's primary differentiator is: AI risk work folded into existing technology risk and controls programs. They also differ in team size (275,000+ vs ~400,000), minimum engagement (Not disclosed vs Not disclosed), and primary industries served (Banking, Insurance vs Financial services, Insurance).
Verify all details directly with each firm before making a decision.