The 2024 audit cycle was, by most measures, operationally stable. Fees held relatively steady. No major regulatory disruptions upended the profession mid-year. What FERF’s 16th Annual Audit Fee Survey and Insights Report captures is both the steadiness of that moment and a profession's growing appetite for greater clarity, communication, and strategic engagement.
Released today, the report draws on 95 survey responses from FEI Members across finance, accounting, governance, and audit roles, as well as a new benchmark analysis of FY2024 audit fee disclosures for approximately 470 S&P 500 companies. What emerges is a picture of a profession that is stable yet evolving: fees are substantial and concentrated and tied to underlying complexity, AI is entering the audit workflows in targeted and measured ways, and finance professionals – many in long-standing audit relationships – are increasingly focused on how communication and transparency can unlock more value from those engagements.
What Financial Leaders Are Actually Paying
The median S&P 500 audit fee for FY2024 came in at $7.96 million. The mean, at $12.2 million, tells a different story — one shaped by the outsized spending at the largest companies. The gap between those two numbers reflects just how concentrated audit fee spending really is: the top 25% of companies account for 58.5% of all S&P 500 audit fees paid.
Scale matters in more ways than one. Mid-sized companies — those with revenues between $1 billion and $5 billion — pay 0.116% of revenue in audit fees. Companies above $5 billion pay just 0.057%. Larger organizations benefit from the economics of scale; mid-market companies bear a proportionally heavier load. Importantly, the report cautions against over-reliance on size-based benchmarks: operational complexity, transaction volume, internal control maturity, and geographic footprint are the true drivers of audit cost.
That complexity-driven variability is precisely why fee management requires more than a benchmark comparison – and why the competitive RFP process remains one of the most actionable tools available. At least one respondent who ran a formal competitive review – and ultimately stayed with their existing auditor – reported fee reductions of 25 to 30 percent through structured back-and-forth discussions. More broadly, respondents described RFPs as governance tools: structured market checks that reset expectations around value and cost, functioning less as switching mechanisms and more as a discipline of periodic alignment.
Long-Tenured Relationships Are Being Actively Reviewed – Not Abandoned
With 51% of survey respondents having worked with their current auditor for more than a decade, 67% are not currently considering a change in audit firms – and most described long-standing relationships as a source of institutional knowledge, efficiency, and stability. That said, one-third of respondents are contemplating a change, reflecting a more deliberate approach to governance oversight as cost pressures and organizational expectations evolve.
Several respondents reported perceiving that audit relationships have become more transactional over time, with value defined primarily by compliance execution rather than by meaningful engagement, risk dialogue, or business understanding. The report is careful to frame this not as a failure of the audit model, but as an evolving definition of value – one where organizations seek enhanced communication and clearer articulation of insights within established independence boundaries, not expanded advisory services.
This is a meaningful signal for audit firms. Tenure has historically been a powerful retention tool and still is. But the data suggests that long-standing relationships are most durable when they are actively reaffirmed through ongoing alignment and clear value delivery, rather than simply assumed.
AI in the Audit: Early, Targeted, and Governance-Driven
Audit firms are deploying artificial intelligence across journal entry testing, anomaly detection, sample selection, and document review. The technology is real, adoption is advancing in deliberate, targeted ways, and the efficiency gains are documented. And yet, when asked whether AI has improved audit quality, survey respondent opinion is evenly split.
That split is revealing. The concern is not that AI is failing – it is that its benefits are not always visible to the client. Some respondents describe a dynamic in which technology is enabling faster processing without a corresponding increase in insight, strategic challenge, or depth of business conversation. If auditors are doing the same work faster, the question some financial leaders are increasingly asking is: where are those savings going?
“What stands out this year is the value perception gap. CFOs are watching auditors adopt AI and asking a fair question: if the technology is making your work faster and cheaper, where are those savings going? The firms that can answer that question — clearly and with data — will have a significant advantage in the conversations ahead.” — John Minnich, Lead Researcher, FERF 16th Annual Audit Fee Survey
On the finance function side, AI adoption remains in its early stages. Limited internal expertise, cybersecurity concerns, and the absence of governance frameworks are the primary barriers. Finance organizations are proceeding with a governance-first mindset – building the data infrastructure, controls documentation, and internal expertise needed for responsible AI adoption over time. The report frames this deliberate pace as appropriate preparation rather than hesitation.
ESG Assurance: Recalibrating, Not Retreating
The EU’s Omnibus I CSRD delay directive sent ripples through corporate sustainability planning, and the survey responses reflect this. Importantly, Wave 1 companies – the largest in-scope organizations already reporting on FY2024 data – were unaffected by the delay. For Wave 2 and Wave 3 organizations, the directive extended deadlines by two years, prompting a clear divergence in approach. Nearly half of respondents maintained their ESG readiness plans entirely unchanged – reflecting either existing Wave 1 obligations or an organizational decision to sustain readiness momentum regardless. The other half scaled back or redirected resources, largely toward California’s climate disclosure mandates under SB 253 and SB 261.
The important framing here is strategic recalibration, not retreat. Most organizations continue their foundational data governance and controls work — the infrastructure needed for assurance, whenever it is required. The pause is tactical. The underlying commitment to sustainability reporting remains intact.
What This Means for Financial Leaders
“The 2024 audit cycle was operationally stable, but the data reveal a profession under pressure to evolve. CFOs are paying significant fees, expecting more in return, and watching closely as AI enters the audit room. The firms that clearly demonstrate how technology translates into value — not just efficiency — will define the next era of the profession.” — Andrej Suskavcevic, CAE, President and CEO, Financial Executives International and FERF
For CFOs and audit committee members, the report offers several practical takeaways:
- Consider an RFP, even if you plan to stay. The data is clear: the competitive process itself drives fee discipline, often without requiring a firm change.
- Reframe the AI conversation with your auditor. Ask directly how technological investments are being reflected in scope, fees, or the depth of insights provided. The value question deserves a direct answer.
- Don’t let tenure substitute for evaluation. Long relationships have value — but they should be tested and affirmed, not assumed.
- On ESG, keep the infrastructure work going. Requirements will return. The organizations best positioned will be those that never stopped building.
About the Report
FERF’s 16th Annual Audit Fee Survey and Insights Report is based on 95 survey responses from FEI Members across finance, accounting, governance, and audit roles, representing private companies, nonprofits, public entities, and government agencies. The survey and additional qualitative interviews were conducted from September 2025 through January 2026.
The report also benchmarks external audit fees for approximately 470 S&P 500 companies, using FY2024 data as reported by more than 4,000 SEC filers extracted from the Calcbench financial data platform (proxy-based audit fee disclosures). The analysis emphasizes median-based statistics, scale-adjusted fee intensity, and auditor segmentation to support professional benchmarking and interpretation.
The report was authored by John Minnich, CGMA, CPA, Founder and Executive Advisor at Minnich + Associates.
The Financial Education & Research Foundation (FERF) is the research affiliate of Financial Executives International (FEI), advancing knowledge for senior finance professionals through independent, objective research on financial management, reporting, and governance.