Finding the Right Fit for Your SOC Examination: Big 4 vs. Top 300 Firms
Key Takeaways:
- Standards Remain the Same: Big 4 and Top 300 CPA firms follow the same AICPA standards and reporting frameworks for SOC 1 and SOC 2 examinations.
- National Coverage Is Possible: Top 300 firms can support geographically distributed organizations through multiple offices, remote audits, and flexible evidence collection.
- Cost and Continuity Matter: Top 300 firms can offer competitive pricing, consistent engagement teams, and greater efficiency throughout the examination process.
- Flexibility and Responsiveness: Top 300 firms often provide more personalized service, direct partner access, and a collaborative approach without sacrificing assurance value.
When organizations evaluate firms for SOC 1 and SOC 2 examinations, the conversation often starts with who to select to perform the SOC examination. While CPA firms are the only entities allowed to perform a SOC examination, determining whether to go with a Big 4 firm, national firm, regional firm, or small firm can be a difficult decision. Although brand recognition is powerful, selecting a Top 300 firm can provide the same assurance value.
While there are some similarities and differences, the main ones can be grouped into the following categories:
1. SOC Reporting Standards
Regardless of the firm chosen, the standards are identical. Both SOC 1 and SOC 2 examinations fall under the AICPA SSAE 18, use the same reporting framework, and apply the same Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2.
2. Geographic Coverage
While Big 4 firms can support complex or geographically distributed organizations, Top 300 firms that often operate nationally can offer the same support with multiple offices, as well as remote audits and evidence collection.
3. Cost and Team Continuity
From a cost standpoint, Top 300 firms can offer more competitive pricing with less overhead and fewer brand-related cost premiums. Teams in Top 300 firms often retain team members at a higher rate than the Big 4, leading to less time spent relearning client-specific evidence and more accurate and consistent testing. This continuity can improve efficiency and reduce client burden over time.
4. Flexibility and Responsiveness
From a flexibility standpoint, Top 300 firms can often provide a more tailored approach as opposed to the policy-heavy approach common at larger firms. Responsiveness can also be a key differentiator. SOC examinations are often a core offering for Top 300 firms, which can lead to faster response times, direct partner access, and a more collaborative working relationship.
5. Brand Recognition
Big 4 firms still have an edge in brand recognition. This can often be a key point when determining who to perform a SOC examination due to name recognition and familiarity. Top 300 firms can also have fairly wide brand recognition based on the area.
Final Thoughts
For SOC 1 and SOC 2 reporting, Top 300 firms provide the same standards-based assurance as the Big 4. With the added benefits of lower cost, consistent engagement teams, and often greater flexibility, choosing one of these firms may be the right decision for many companies without sacrificing national coverage or market acceptance.
As a Top 300 firm, McKonly & Asbury is here to provide standards‑based SOC assurance with the responsiveness and continuity clients expect. If your entity is interested in obtaining additional information on SOC reports, or if you have any other questions related to SOC, please contact us.
For more information on these services and more, be sure to visit our firm’s SOC & Cybersecurity industry page, and don’t hesitate to contact Dave Hammarberg, CPA, CFE, CISSP, GSEC, MCSE, CISA, CCSFP, CHQP, CCA regarding our services.
About the Author
Chris Fieger, CPA, CISA, CISM, CCSFP, CCP is a Senior Manager with the firm. He is a member of the firm’s System and Organization Controls (SOC) & Technology Practice, performing SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3 engagements, as well as HITRUST an… Read more
