One of the first questions every client asks us at Agency is how much the auditor will cost — and the honest answer is that it depends dramatically on which firm you choose. SOC 2 auditor fees represent the single largest compliance expense for most organizations — typically forty to fifty percent of the total first-year cost. Audit pricing varies dramatically based on the firm's tier, specialization, geographic location, and the scope of your engagement. A boutique SOC 2-specialized firm may charge fifteen thousand to thirty thousand dollars for a straightforward Type II audit, while a Big 4 firm may charge one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand dollars or more for the same scope. What we always explain to clients is that the price difference reflects brand reputation, team seniority, overhead structure, and the firm's target market — but not necessarily report quality. A SOC 2 report from a reputable specialized firm carries the same attestation weight as a report from a Big 4 firm because all SOC 2 reports are issued under the same AICPA attestation standards by licensed CPA firms.
This article compares SOC 2 audit pricing across firm tiers, explains what drives pricing differences, and provides benchmarks to help organizations select an auditor that delivers the right balance of quality, timeline, and cost for their specific situation.
Auditor Firm Tiers
Tier Overview
| Tier | Examples | Annual SOC 2 Reports | Typical Client Size | Market Position |
|---|
| Big 4 | Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG | 500+ (across all SOC practices) | Enterprise (1,000+ employees); publicly traded companies | Global brand recognition; required by some enterprise buyers |
| Large specialty firms | Schellman, A-LIGN, Coalfire | 500-1,500+ SOC 2 reports | Mid-market to enterprise (100-5,000+ employees) | Established SOC 2 brand; deep compliance specialization |
| Mid-size specialty firms | KirkpatrickPrice, BARR Advisory, Linford & Company | 200-500 SOC 2 reports | Growth-stage to mid-market (25-1,000 employees) | SOC 2-focused practices with strong reputations |
| Boutique firms | Prescient Assurance, Johanson Group, and others | 50-200 SOC 2 reports | Startups to growth-stage (10-250 employees) | Cost-competitive; personalized service; faster timelines |
Pricing by Firm Tier
Type I Audit Fees
| Firm Tier | Fee Range | Typical Engagement |
|---|
| Big 4 | $50,000-$150,000+ | Enterprise client; multiple criteria; complex scope |
| Large specialty | $25,000-$60,000 | Mid-market client; Security + one to two additional criteria |
| Mid-size specialty | $15,000-$35,000 | Growth-stage client; Security or Security + Availability |
| Boutique | $10,000-$25,000 | Startup client; Security only or Security + Availability |
Type II Audit Fees
| Firm Tier | Fee Range | Typical Engagement |
|---|
| Big 4 | $80,000-$300,000+ | Enterprise client; multiple criteria; twelve-month observation period |
| Large specialty | $35,000-$80,000 | Mid-market client; Security + one to two additional criteria; six to twelve-month period |
| Mid-size specialty | $20,000-$50,000 | Growth-stage client; Security + Availability; six-month period |
| Boutique | $15,000-$35,000 | Startup client; Security only; three to six-month period |
Annual Renewal Fees
Renewal audits (second year and beyond) are typically twenty to thirty percent less than first-year fees because the auditor has existing documentation, established procedures, and a baseline understanding of the organization.
| Firm Tier | First-Year Type II | Renewal Type II | Savings |
|---|
| Big 4 | $80,000-$300,000 | $65,000-$240,000 | 15-20% reduction |
| Large specialty | $35,000-$80,000 | $28,000-$60,000 | 20-25% reduction |
| Mid-size specialty | $20,000-$50,000 | $16,000-$38,000 | 20-25% reduction |
| Boutique | $15,000-$35,000 | $12,000-$27,000 | 20-25% reduction |
What Drives Pricing Differences
Fee Determinants
| Factor | How It Affects Price |
|---|
| Firm tier and brand | Big 4 brand premium adds fifty to two hundred percent over specialty firm pricing for equivalent scope |
| Team seniority | Higher-tier firms staff engagements with more senior professionals at higher billing rates |
| Number of Trust Service Criteria | Each additional criterion increases scope; expect five to fifteen percent incremental fee per criterion |
| Observation period length | Longer observation periods require more testing; twelve-month periods cost more than three-month periods |
| Organization complexity | Multi-cloud, multi-region, complex architecture increases audit effort |
| Employee count | More employees mean more access management testing, more personnel to sample |
| Number of in-scope systems | More systems require more configuration review and testing |
| Subservice organizations | Carve-out vs inclusive method affects audit scope and effort |
| GRC platform usage | Platform-organized evidence reduces auditor fieldwork time; may reduce fees five to fifteen percent |
| First year vs renewal | First-year engagements require more effort for documentation review and baseline understanding |
Billing Rate Comparison
| Role | Big 4 Rate | Large Specialty Rate | Mid-Size Rate | Boutique Rate |
|------|-----------|---------------------|--------------|--------------|
| Partner | $500-$800/hour | $350-$500/hour | $250-$400/hour | $200-$350/hour |
| Senior Manager | $350-$550/hour | $250-$350/hour | $200-$300/hour | $150-$250/hour |
| Manager | $250-$400/hour | $175-$275/hour | $150-$225/hour | $125-$200/hour |
| Senior Associate | $175-$300/hour | $125-$200/hour | $100-$175/hour | $100-$150/hour |
| Staff | $125-$200/hour | $100-$150/hour | $80-$125/hour | $75-$100/hour |
The team composition affects total cost significantly. Big 4 engagements are staffed with more senior professionals at higher rates; boutique firms may staff more efficiently with experienced mid-level professionals.
Does Higher Cost Mean Better Quality?
What Determines Report Quality
| Quality Factor | Related to Price? |
|---|
| Opinion accuracy | No — all licensed CPA firms follow the same AICPA attestation standards |
| Testing rigor | Minimal variation — AICPA standards define minimum testing requirements |
| Report completeness | Minimal variation — report structure is standardized |
| Auditor industry expertise | Somewhat — specialty firms may have deeper industry knowledge |
| Communication and responsiveness | Often inversely related — boutique firms may provide more personalized attention |
| Timeline reliability | Not correlated — timeline depends more on engagement management than firm size |
When Premium Pricing Is Justified
| Scenario | Why a Higher-Tier Firm May Be Worth It |
|---|
| Your customers specifically require Big 4 or named firms | Some enterprise buyers (particularly in financial services) specify acceptable audit firms |
| You are publicly traded or pre-IPO | Big 4 relationships provide continuity as you scale into SOX and financial statement audits |
| Your scope is exceptionally complex | Large specialty firms have deeper bench strength for complex multi-criteria, multi-entity engagements |
| You need a global firm with international offices | Big 4 firms have global coverage for multinational engagements |
When Budget-Tier Firms Deliver Equal Value
| Scenario | Why a Mid-Size or Boutique Firm Is Sufficient |
|---|
| Standard SaaS company pursuing SOC 2 | SOC 2 is a standardized engagement — all firms follow the same process |
| Startup or growth-stage company | Budget-tier firms specialize in this segment and understand startup environments |
| Security + Availability only | Standard scope that any experienced SOC 2 firm handles routinely |
| Customer requirements do not specify an audit firm | Most enterprise buyers accept reports from any licensed CPA firm with SOC 2 experience |
Selecting the Right Auditor
Selection Criteria
| Criterion | What to Evaluate | How to Assess |
|---|
| SOC 2 experience | Number of SOC 2 engagements per year | Ask directly; check the firm's website and client references |
| Industry expertise | Experience with your specific industry (SaaS, fintech, healthcare, etc.) | Request references from similar-industry clients |
| GRC platform familiarity | Experience with your GRC platform (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, Sprinto) | Ask which platforms they work with regularly; confirm they can access the platform |
| Timeline | Availability to begin within your required timeframe; expected fieldwork duration | Confirm start date and estimated report delivery date in writing |
| Communication | Responsiveness during the proposal process; willingness to answer pre-engagement questions | Evaluate response time and quality during the selection process |
| Pricing | Fee quote for your specific scope | Get quotes from three or more firms for comparison |
| Team assignment | Who will lead the engagement; their experience level | Request the engagement team bios; ask about team stability |
| References | Client references you can speak with | Request two to three references from similar-size organizations |
Evaluation Process
| Step | Action | Timeline |
|---|
| 1 | Prepare a scope summary (company size, systems, criteria, observation period) | Day 1 |
| 2 | Request proposals from three to five firms across different tiers | Week 1 |
| 3 | Review proposals for scope understanding, pricing, timeline, and team | Week 2-3 |
| 4 | Conduct brief calls with top two to three firms | Week 3-4 |
| 5 | Check references for finalist firms | Week 4 |
| 6 | Select firm and sign engagement letter | Week 4-5 |
Common Selection Mistakes
| Mistake | Consequence | How to Avoid |
|---|
| Selecting solely on price | Lowest-cost firm may have less experience or slower timelines | Balance price against experience, timeline, and communication quality |
| Selecting solely on brand | Overpaying for brand recognition your customers do not require | Survey your customers; if they do not specify a firm, brand premium is unnecessary |
| Not checking GRC platform familiarity | Auditor unfamiliar with your platform requires more manual evidence provision | Confirm the auditor has worked with your platform |
| Not getting multiple quotes | No pricing benchmark; may overpay | Get three to five quotes from different firm tiers |
| Selecting too late | Preferred auditor not available; delays timeline | Begin auditor selection two to three months before your target fieldwork date |
| Not reading the engagement letter carefully | Unexpected fees for scope changes, additional criteria, or re-testing | Review the engagement letter for scope, fees, and change provisions |
Cost Optimization Strategies
How to Reduce Auditor Fees
| Strategy | Potential Savings | How |
|---|
| Use a GRC platform | 5-15% fee reduction | Platform-organized evidence reduces auditor fieldwork hours |
| Start with Security only | 10-25% lower than multi-criteria | Each additional criterion increases scope and fees |
| Choose a six-month observation period (first audit) | 10-15% lower than twelve months | Shorter period means less testing |
| Prepare evidence thoroughly before fieldwork | 5-10% reduction in overruns | Well-organized evidence reduces auditor questions and follow-ups |
| Get multiple quotes | 10-20% through competitive pressure | Auditors may offer competitive pricing when they know you are comparing |
| Negotiate renewal pricing at signing | Lock in renewal rates | Include renewal pricing terms in the initial engagement letter |
| Bundle with other services | 5-15% discount | If pursuing SOC 2 + SOC 1 or SOC 2 + penetration testing, some firms offer bundle discounts |
Fee Structures to Understand
| Fee Type | What It Means |
|---|
| Fixed fee | Total engagement cost is fixed regardless of hours — most common for SOC 2 |
| Time and materials | Billing based on actual hours; total cost can exceed estimate — less common, more risky |
| Fixed fee with scope change provisions | Fixed fee for defined scope; additional fees if scope changes during the engagement |
| Phased pricing | Separate fees for readiness assessment (optional) and the attestation engagement |
Key Takeaways
- Based on data we see across our client base, SOC 2 auditor fees range from fifteen thousand dollars (boutique firm, simple scope) to three hundred thousand dollars or more (Big 4, complex enterprise scope)
- Four firm tiers serve different market segments: Big 4 (enterprise), large specialty (mid-market to enterprise), mid-size specialty (growth to mid-market), and boutique (startup to growth)
- What we consistently tell clients is that a SOC 2 report from a reputable specialty firm carries the same attestation weight as a Big 4 report — all are issued under AICPA standards by licensed CPA firms
- Pricing is driven by firm tier, number of Trust Service Criteria, observation period length, organization complexity, and employee count
- Big 4 firms charge fifty to two hundred percent more than specialty firms — we advise that the premium is justified only when customers specifically require Big 4 or when the engagement is exceptionally complex
- We recommend getting quotes from three to five firms across different tiers to establish pricing benchmarks and create competitive pressure
- GRC platform usage can reduce auditor fees by five to fifteen percent through organized evidence and reduced fieldwork
- Renewal audits are typically twenty to twenty-five percent less expensive than first-year engagements
- We help our clients select auditors based on SOC 2 experience, industry expertise, GRC platform familiarity, timeline, and pricing — not brand alone
- Begin auditor selection two to three months before your target fieldwork date to ensure preferred firm availability
Frequently Asked Questions
Do enterprise buyers care which CPA firm conducted the SOC 2 audit?
What we tell clients is that most enterprise buyers accept SOC 2 reports from any licensed CPA firm with SOC 2 experience. They evaluate the report content — opinion type, control descriptions, test results, and exceptions — rather than the audit firm brand. However, some enterprise buyers in highly regulated industries (banking, financial services, insurance) may have approved vendor lists that specify acceptable audit firms. We always recommend surveying your top customers and prospects to determine whether firm selection matters for your specific market.
Should I use the same auditor that my GRC platform recommends?
Based on our experience, GRC platform auditor partner networks are a reasonable starting point — these firms are familiar with the platform and can access evidence efficiently. However, you are not required to use a partner firm. We advise getting quotes from both partner and non-partner firms to compare pricing and evaluate based on experience, timeline, and cost. Some partner firms may offer platform-specific pricing advantages; others may not.
Can I switch auditors between audit cycles?
The guidance we give here is: yes, and it is more common than most people think. Organizations switch auditors for pricing, timeline, industry expertise, or service quality reasons. The transition requires the new auditor to familiarize themselves with your control environment, which may add some initial effort to the engagement. Provide the new auditor with your previous SOC 2 report and GRC platform access. The auditor retention rate across the industry is approximately seventy-five to eighty-five percent — meaning fifteen to twenty-five percent of organizations switch each cycle.
Is it worth paying more for a readiness assessment from the same firm that will conduct the audit?
In our experience, there is a potential independence consideration. Some CPA firms conduct readiness assessments and audits as separate engagements to maintain independence — the readiness assessment team advises, and a separate audit team attests. This approach provides the benefit of the firm's familiarity with your environment while maintaining attestation independence. We advise confirming with the firm how they manage the independence boundary between advisory and attestation services. Alternatively, use a separate consulting firm for readiness and the CPA firm solely for the attestation engagement.
