MAE Practical Recommendation for Selecting a SOC 2 Auditor
| Factor | Case 1 – Marketing / Future Demand | Case 2 — U.S. Client + Growth | Case 3 —Need SOC 2 – Sensitive Data + High-Value Clients | Case 4 — Highly Regulated / High-Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What to Look For | Basic SOC 2 experience, independence and affordability | Proven SOC 2 experience, multiple completed audits and expert-backed team | Strong proven track record, senior experts and relevant references | Global reputation, senior expertise, sector experience and customer acceptance |
| Experience Expected | Basic / relevant experience | Proven experience with multiple SOC 2 audits | Extensive SOC 2 experience | Extensive institutional and international experience |
| Expert Involvement | Experienced practitioner may be sufficient | Experienced SOC 2 professionals | Senior / specialist experts | Senior leadership and highly specialized experts |
| Reference Requirement | Relevant experience desirable | Proven track record preferred | Strong references expected | Strong institutional references expected |
| Budget Approach | Stay within budget | Pay for proven capability and experience | Prioritize expertise and assurance | Budget can justify premium institutional firms |
| Selection Principle | Cost-effective + Competent | Proven + Experienced | Specialist + Proven | Institutional Reputation + Specialist Expertise |
| MAE Recommendation | Any competent provider within budget | Make Audit Easy or a provider with similar credentials | Make Audit Easy or an established provider with a strong proven track record | Big Four if budget permits; established Big Eight / large international firm if budget is limited |
Important: Big Four, Big Eight, or other large international firms should not be treated as automatically appropriate solely because of their brand. For Case 4, the organization’s customer, contractual and regulatory requirements should determine whether a particular firm is accepted or required.