The content on this page has been converted from PDF to HTML format using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as part of our ongoing efforts to improve accessibility and usability of our publications. Note:
- No human verification has been conducted of the converted content.
- While we strive for accuracy errors or omissions may exist.
- This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a definitive or authoritative source.
- For the official and verified version of the publication, refer to the original PDF document.
If you identify any inaccuracies or have concerns about the content, please contact us at [email protected].
Firm Metrics July 2025
Firm Metrics overview
Individual audit and SoQM inspection findings are not the only metrics to assess audit quality. The FRC considers other data points, including: the firms' own systems of internal monitoring and their own metrics, as well as monitoring by the ICAEW. For the first time, we have published data on Audit Firm Metrics (formerly Audit Quality Indicators), an initiative voluntarily engaged with the firms. This data is intended to inform and stimulate meaningful conversations between the firms and audit committees about how quality is defined and managed by a firm.
Firm metrics should enhance transparency about, and provide deeper insight into, some factors related to performance of audit firms. These metrics provide easy to use, consistent, and comparable information about various aspects of audit firm performance.
In addition to Audit Quality Review (AQR) and Recognised Supervisory Body (RSB) inspection results, these metrics provide information on further aspects of the firms' performance including audit firm culture, internal inspection results, staff workload, and partner involvement. This provides a holistic view across the firms, and offering users of audit services, including audit committees and investors, a more comprehensive understanding of larger audit firms' performance.
We recognise that these metrics are not formulaically or mechanistically linked to audit quality. However, when used effectively, they can prompt valuable discussions between Audit Committee Chairs (ACCs) and firms about factors affecting audit quality, broadening ACCs' perspectives when recommending external auditors to boards or assessing the performance of their existing auditor. This supports the functioning of the audit market as well as the FRC's objective of a more resilient audit market that provides greater choice.
Firm Metrics offer context-specific insights. The significance of particular values for any given metric can vary and should be considered alongside other pieces of information, including their prior-year values. This quantitative data should also be considered in the context of the qualitative aspects of auditing, as outlined in FRC publications such as the "Audit Committee Minimum Standard", and "What Makes a Good Audit".
All content provided in the report was provided directly by the firms and is unchanged by the FRC. Firms have provided supporting narrative where they wished to add technical context to specific metrics.
Further details can be found in this Definitions Note.
Reporting periods
Below are the periods covered for the metrics of each firm, unless otherwise stated.
| Firm | Period Covered |
|---|---|
| BDO | 1 July 2023 - 30 June 2024 |
| Crowe | 1 April 2024 - 31 March 2025 |
| Deloitte | 1 May 2024 - 30 April 2025 |
| EY | 1 July 2023 - 28 June 2024 |
| Forvis Mazars | 1 September 2023 - 31 August 2024 |
| Grant Thornton | 1 January 2024 - 31 December 2024 |
| Johnston Carmichael | 1 June 2024 - 31 May 2025 |
| KPMG | 1 October 2023 - 30 September 2024 |
| MHA | 1 April 2024 - 31 March 2025 |
| PKF | 1 April 2024 - 31 March 2025 |
| PwC | 1 July 2023 - 30 June 2024 |
| RSM | 1 April 2024 - 31 March 2025 |
1. People/culture survey results
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People/culture survey results | Audit staff responses to certain annual people/culture survey questions | Percentage of favourable and unfavourable responses to the survey questions | Resources Favourable: | 55.2% (53.3%) | 38% (N/A) | 55.4% (61.0%) | 54% (49%) | 39.9% (40.9%) | 61% (61%) | 47.5% (48.5%) | 59% (60%) | 29% (28%) | 50% (30%) | 53% (40%) | 72% (N/A) |
| Neutral: | 23.2% (0%) | 28% (N/A) | 24.6% (24.5%) | 22% (22%) | 31.2% (28.9%) | 20% (24%) | 30.5% (26.0%) | 24% (22%) | 57% (50%) | 20% (32%) | 20% (19%) | 18% (N/A) | ||||
| Unfavourable: | 21.6% (46.7%) | 34% (N/A) | 20% (14.6%) | 24% (29%) | 28.8% (30.2%) | 19% (15%) | 22.0% (25.5%) | 17% (18%) | 14% (22%) | 30% (38%) | 27% (41%) | 10% (N/A) | ||||
| Training and development | Favourable: | 78.5% (84.9%) | 82% (N/A) | 78.6% (79.4%) | 82% (83%) | 64.2% (61.1%) | 79% (81%) | 82.0% (76.5%) | 81% (82%) | 45% (50%) | 77% (73%) | 81% (77%) | 80% (N/A) | |||
| Neutral: | 16.0% (0.0%) | 12% (N/A) | 14.2% (14.5%) | 12% (11%) | 24.8% (25.9%) | 16% (16%) | 14.0% (15.5%) | 14% (13%) | 45% (36%) | 17% (19%) | 12% (14%) | 15% (N/A) | ||||
| Unfavourable: | 5.5% (15.1%) | 6% (N/A) | 7.2% (6.1%) | 6% (6%) | 11.0% (13.0%) | 5% (3%) | 4% (8.0%) | 5% (5%) | 10% (14%) | 6% (8%) | 7% (9%) | 5% (N/A) | ||||
| Commitment to audit quality | Favourable: | 93.2% (95.9%) | 81% (N/A) | 81.5% (82.3%) | 89% (88%) | 70.8% (73.2%) | 94% (97%) | 87.0% (88.0%) | 85% (91%) | 72% (64%) | 75% (63%) | 93% (91%) | 83% (N/A) | |||
| Neutral: | 5.4% (0.0%) | 15% (N/A) | 14.1% (12.3%) | 8% (9%) | 19.2% (17.9%) | 4% (3%) | 8.0% (8.0%) | 12% (7%) | 25% (29%) | 17% (25%) | 6% (7%) | 14% (N/A) | ||||
| Unfavourable: | 1.4% (4.1%) | 4% (N/A) | 4.4% (5.4%) | 3% (3%) | 9.9% (8.9%) | 2% (0%) | 5.0% (4.0%) | 3% (2%) | 3% (7%) | 8% (12%) | 1% (2%) | 3% (N/A) |
Supporting Narrative
BDO
As part of the 2024 BDO UK Audit Quality Survey, the list of possible responses was expanded to include a 5-point Likert scale. The questions and their wording have been unchanged year-on-year.
Crowe
These are based on firmwide survey results from 2024. The questions asked were identical to the FRC's proposed wording and were asked of partners and staff in the audit practice only.
Deloitte
For 2025 (and going forward), Deloitte will use a 5-point scale to measure survey outcomes with 4 and 5 aligned to favourable, 3 being neutral and 1 and 2 being unfavourable. In 2024, an 11 point scale was used with 7-10 being favourable, 5-6 being neutral and 0-4 as unfavourable.
EY
Refer to the EY Audit Quality Report and Transparency Report for details. 2024 survey conducted August - September 2024, 45% response rate.
KPMG
The prior year (September 2023) KPMG survey questions were set before the FRC guidance on questions was available so the closest comparable questions were used.
MHA
MHA uses a 0-10 scale. The following scales were used when categorising the results: Unfavourable (0, 1, 2 & 3); Neutral (4, 5 & 6); Favourable (7, 8, 9 & 10)
PKF
The survey was completed in November/December 2024.
PwC
Further information on PwC's audit culture is on page 7 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.
RSM
These are the outcomes from the audit quality survey issued in 2024
2. Internal quality reviews
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Internal quality review by firms | Extent of review by firms' internal quality review teams | Responsible Individuals (RIs) who have been reviewed internally, as a percentage of RIs who have signed an audit opinion in the 12-month period covered | % of the Rls | 57.8% (60.8%) | 74.5% (71.4%) | 34% (34%) | 44% (45%) | 53.7% (52.5%) | 79% (80%) | 58% (45%) | 30% (39%) | 33% (49%) | 100% (97%) | 42% (47%) | 55% (60%) |
Supporting Narrative
Crowe
This is based on internal file reviews completed in the 9-month period ended 31/03/2025 and the RIs who signed audit opinions in that period. In 2024, Crowe moved its internal quality review period-end date from June to March. As part of this process, a full year's worth of reviews were performed in the 9-month period ended 31/03/2025. The comparatives are for the programme which ran from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024.
EY
Includes all RIs who could be expected to sign opinions, including non-UK RIs, not RIs who have signed an opinion.
Forvis Mazars
In addition to internal Quality Monitoring reviews, Forvis Mazars supports newly appointed RIs through a mentorship program, an initiative not reflected in the firm's review metrics. This program serves as an additional quality monitoring measure with a minimum of two files reviewed by an experienced RI mentor.
Grant Thornton
During the year, 79% of RIs at Grant Thornton were subject to an internal review. Of the remainder, 2% were subject to an external review and 14% had only recently been appointed and hence both groups were exempt from an internal review in the year; the remaining 5% were in the process of relinquishing RI status.
KPMG
KPMG RIs are reviewed every 3 years with the number of RIs reviewed adjusted for reviews covered by external inspections and RI resignations/retirements. In the period ended 30 August 2024 there were a number of KPMG RIs who had resigned /retired or were subject to reviews covered by AQR inspections and so the number of RIs reviewed is lower compared to the previous year.
MHA
24 Rls reviewed. 73 Rls signed an audit opinion during the period covered.
PwC
The Responsible Individuals (RIs) in scope of PwC's internal inspections are based on a cyclical policy (see page 64 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report).
3. Inspection results - internal
Some of the firms' figures above may not match other publications due to timing differences.
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Inspection results - internal | Quality grading of audits internally reviewed (expressed as the percentage of number of audits reviewed during the period) | All audits | Good: | 16.3% (15.1%) | Good or equivalent: 6.8% (2.4%) | Compliant: 94.2% (92.8%) | Good or equivalent: 91% (90%) | Good: 23% (20%) | Good: 7% (0%) | Good or equivalent (Compliant): 68% (59%) | Good or equivalent: 8% (17%) | Good 25% (12%) | No improvements required 0% (0%) | Compliant: 84% (FY23: 85%) | Grade A -21% (18%) |
| Acceptable, Limited Improvements: | 39.8% (52.7%) | Limited Improvement required or equivalent: 56.8% (69.0%) | Improvements Needed: 5.0% (5.6%) | Limited improvements required or equivalent: 5% (9%) | Limited improvements required: 51% (41%) | Limited improvements: 79% (65%) | Limited improvements (Compliant - improvements needed): 22% (26%) | Limited improvements required or equivalent: 42% (21%) | Limited improvements required or equivalent: 21% (38%) | Minor improvements required: 88% (76%) | CwIR: 8% (FY23: 9%) | Grade B-60% (63%) | ||||
| Improvements Required: | 26.5% (16.1%) | Improvement required or equivalent: 15.9% (16.7%) | Non Compliant: 0.8% (1.6%) | Improvement required or equivalent: 4% (1%) | Improvements required: 20% (33%) | Improvments required: 3% (14%) | Improvements required or equivalent (Not compliant - Limited improvements required or equivalent: 8% (13%) | Improvements required or equivalent: 21% (38%) | Improvements required or equivalent: 29% (25%) | Improvements required: 3% (21%) | Non-compliant: 0% (FY23:8%) | Grade C - 13% (18%) | ||||
| Significant Improvements Required: | 17.4% (16.1%) | Significant improvement required: 20.5% (11.95%) | Significant improvement required: n/a | Significant improvements required: 6% (6%) | Significant improvements: 3% (9%) | Significant improvements (Compliant - severe): 2% (2%) | Significant improvements required or equivalent: 29% (25%) | Significant improvements required or equivalent: 29% (25%) | Major improvements required: 9% (3%) | Grade D-6% (1%) | ||||||
| PIE audits | Good: | 29.4% (0.0%) | Good or equivalent: 33.3% (20.0%) | Compliant: 95.0% (94.0%) | Good or equivalent: 90% (85%) | Good: 55% (60%) | Good 67% (0%) | Good or equivalent (Compliant):82% (69%) | Good or equivalent: 0% (0%) | Good or equivalent: 0% (0%) | No improvements required 0% (0%) | Compliant: 97% (FY23: 90%) | Grade A-100% (100%) | |||
| Acceptable, Limited Improvements: | 35.3% (85.7%) | Limited Improvement required or equivalent: 66.7% (40.0%) | Improvements Needed: 5.0% (4.0%) | Limited improvements required or equivalent: 5% (15%) | Limited improvements required: 27% (40%) | Limited improvements 33% (100%) | Limited improvements (Compliant - improvements needed):12% (26%) | Limited improvements required or equivalent: 25% (0%) | Limited improvements required or equivalent: 25% (0%) | Minor improvements required 100% (72%) | CwIR: 3% (FY23: 2%) | Grade B-0% (0%) | ||||
| Improvements Required: | 29.4% (7.1%) | Improvement required or equivalent: 0.0% (20.0%) | Non Compliant: 0.0% (2.0%) | Improvement required or equivalent: 5% (0%) | Improvements required: 18% (0%) | Improvements required 0% (0%), | Improvements required or equivalent (Not compliant limited):6% (5%) | Improvements required or equivalent: 50% (0%) | Improvements required or equivalent: 50% (0%) | Improvements required: 0% (14%) | Non-compliant: 0% (FY23:8%) | Grade C-0% (0%) | ||||
| Significant Improvements Required: | 5.9% (7.1%) | Significant improvement required: 0.0% (20.0%) | Significant improvement required: n/a | Significant improvements required: 0% (0%) | Significant improvements required 0% (0%) | Significant improvements required (Not compliant - severe): 0% (0%) | Significant improvements required or equivalent: 25% (0%) | Significant improvements required or equivalent: 25% (0%) | Major improvements required: 0% (14%) | Grade D-0% (0%) |
Supporting Narrative
BDO
All audits: For the purpose of reporting this metric, only Responsible Individuals (RIs) subject to BDO UK's Practice Review Programme are included in line with the FRC's definition of 'Internal Quality Review'. PIE Audits: The status of audit engagements has been assessed at the end of the review cycle in order to identify whether or not the audit engagement should be classified as a PIE.
Crowe
For each metric, the percentage graded as 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively are shown. This is based on internal file reviews completed in the 9-month period ended 31/03/2025. In 2024, Crowe moved its internal quality review period-end date from June to March. As part of this process, a full year's worth of reviews were performed in the 9-month period ended 31/03/2025. The comparatives are for the programme which ran from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024.
EY
Includes interoffice group audit opinions. EY uses a 3-point scale. PIEs stated are UK PIE companies audited by EY UK from 1 July 2023 to 28 June 2024.
Grant Thornton
At Grant Thornton, we have two internal quality review programmes: National Assurance Review (NAR) covers the whole audit from planning to completion. This includes a review of detailed audit work across a range of areas. Each RI is subject to a NAR at least once every three years, with new Rls being reviewed normally within a year of appointment. An Rl with a file that does not meet the expected standard is subject to review in the subsequent year. During the year, 35% of RIs had a NAR (2023: 35%). Pulse programme which focuses on a number of risk areas of each audit. Any RI who has not been subject to an external or NAR review in any year, receives a Pulse review, with only minimal exceptions approved by the Head of Audit. During the year 44% (2023: 45%) of RIs had a Pulse review. Firm's objective is to ensure that all Rls are subject to a quality review every year.
KPMG
The PIE listing used for the calculation is the UK PIE listing.
MHA
No PIE engagements were subjected to internal quality monitoring for the prior period. Four PIE engagements were included in the Cold File review process for the current period.
PwC
Further details on PwC inspection results and PwC's other Audit Quality Measures can be found on page 6 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.
RSM
An A grade represents the highest quality standard.
4. Inspection results - external
Some firms are not subject to inspection every year by the FRC and/or the firm's Recognised Supervisory Body. Only those with annual external inspections have been reported, as per the Definitions Note. These results are from the most recent FRC cycle of inspections for all the firms reported above.
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Inspection results - external | Percentage of audits inspected, by quality grading | AQR | % of good and limited improvements required | 50% (39%) | 95% (94%) | 90% (76%) | 90% (44%) | 90% (89%) | 90% (76%) | ||||||
| % of improvements required | 21% (46%) | 5% (0%) | 10% (24%) | 0% (44%) | 10% (11%) | 10% (24%) | ||||||||||
| % of significant improvements required | 29% (15%) | 0% (6%) | 0% (0%) | 10% (12%) | 0% (0%) | 0% (0%) | ||||||||||
| RSB | % of good or equivalent and of improvement required or equivalent | 90% (100%) | 90% (90%) | 100% (70%) | 100% (100%) | |||||||||||
| % Improvement required | 0% (0%) | 10% (10%) | 0% (20%) | 0% (0%) | ||||||||||||
| % of significant improvement required or equivalent | 10% (0%) | 0% (0%) | 0% (10%) | 0% (0%) |
Supporting Narrative
PwC
Further details on PwC inspection results and PwC's other Audit Quality Measures can be found on page 6 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.
5. Partners' and Responsible Individuals' involvement in audits
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Partners' and Responsible Individuals' involvement in audits | Extent of involvement in and/or supervision of audits by partners and partner-equivalents | Average hours spent on audits as a percentage of total audit hours by Responsible Individuals and partners | All audits | 5.5% (5.4%) | 4.0% (4.4%) | 4.4% (4.4%) | 4% (4%) | 4.4% (4.3%) | 6% (6%) | 10.2% (10.0%) | 6% (5%) | 5%(5%) | 6% (7%) | 5%(6%) | 4% (5%) |
| PIE Audits | 7.3% (6.5%) | 5.8% (7.2%) | 4.8% (4.5%) | 5% (5%) | 4.6% (4.9%) | 6% (6%) | 10.2% (10.0%) | 6% (6%) | 5%(6%) | 5%(5%) | 4% (5%) | 4% (5%) |
Supporting Narrative
EY
Hours on PIE audits may include other group audit hours incurred which are not specific to the PIE entity. PIEs include Investment Trusts, Lloyds Syndicates or SPVs (Special Purpose Vehicle), on which lower partner involvement would be expected thus impacting overall average. PIEs stated are UK PIE companies audited by EY UK from 1 July 2023 to 28 June 2024.
KPMG
The PIE listing used for the calculation is the UK PIE listing.
PwC
PwC has non-RI audit partners and directors who also lead our audit staff, for example, in Audit Quality and Digital Audit functions. See further details on page 49 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.
6. Staff / partners and Responsible Individuals ratio
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Staff / partners and Responsible Individuals ratio | Capacity of partners / Responsible Individuals to supervise junior audit staff in the firm, and the level of professional support for partners/Responsible Individuals | Average number of audit staff managed by a partner / Responsible Individual | Average number of audit staff managed by a partner / Responsible Individual | 16.0:1 (16.7:1) | 13.3 (15.1) | 16.01 (16.01) | 19:1 (19:1) | 15:1 (14:1) | 17:1 (17:1) | 8.5:1 (7.9:1) | 21.9:1 (22.6:1) | 10:1 (9:1) | 15:1 (12:1) | 18:1 (17:1) | 10.2:1 (10.2:1) |
Supporting Narrative
EY
This is calculated using average FTE.
KPMG
Firms have different operational structures (e.g. IT auditors within or outside audit, centres of excellence and varying scales of offshore delivery centres) which will affect their reported leverage ratio.
PwC
PwC has non-RI audit partners and directors who also lead our audit staff, for example, in Audit Quality and Digital Audit functions. See further details on page 49 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.
7a. Staff workload
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7a | Staff workload | Number of hours worked per week, as a percentage of contracted hours | Average hours worked by staff, by group of grades in the audit practice, on a weekly basis, as a percentage of weekly contracted hours | Partners & Directors: [% utilisation] | 117.2% (119.2%) | 107.2% (108.0%) | 118% (119%) | 121% (122%) | 112.9% (114.7%) | 110% (111%) | 113.4% (109.7%) | 114% (116%) | 110% (110%) | 93%(108%) | 123% (125%) | 108% (108%) |
| Managers & Senior Managers: [% utilisation] | 107.4% (108.1%) | 104.1% (105.3%) | 111% (112%) | 115% (116%) | 105.2% (107.0%) | 104% (105%) | 106.2% (104.1%) | 110% (112%) | 108% (104%) | 102% (97%) | 115% (118%) | 108% (109%) | ||||
| Qualified, but below Managers: [% utilisation] | 106.8% (108.0%) | 103.7% (103.4%) | 113% (114%) | 111% (113%) | 103.5% (104.4%) | 103% (104%) | 103.6% (104.8%) | 109% (111%) | 116% (101%) | 101% (95%) | 112% (113%) | 104% (104%) | ||||
| Unqualified: [% utilisation] | 103.3% (104.4%) | 101.4% (101.4%) | 108% (107%) | 108% (109%) | 102.4% (103.5%) | 102% (102%) | 101.4% (101.6%) | 105% (106%) | 110% (99%) | 101% (95%) | 106% (107%) | 102% (102%) |
Supporting Narrative
BDO
All produced metrics included chargeable hours and non-chargeable hours (including treating time off in lieu as annual leave). Whilst BDO UK's support contained 'Infrastructure' (i.e. support and administrative)-mapped staff, these did not exceed 5% of total headcount of the audit practice in any instance. All support and administrative staff have been mapped to 'Unqualified'. BDO UK's FTE weekly contracted hours range from 35 to 36.25 hours.
EY
EY contracted hours are 35 per week for employees below Equity Partner (including non-equity partners); 40 hours for Equity Partners.
KPMG
KPMG total standard contracted hours are a 35 hour week.
PwC
The majority of PwC staff are contracted to a standard working week of 37.5 hours. The average utilisation across all grades equates to an average total working week of 41.6 hours and 44.3 hours in the peak reporting period (January to March).
7b. Staff workload for busy period
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7b | Staff workload for busy period | Number of hours worked per week, as a percentage of contracted hours, for busy period (January - March unless otherwise stated in the narrative) | Average hours worked by group of grades in the audit practice, for busy period, as a percentage of weekly contracted hours | Partners & Directors: [% utilisation] | 119.9% (120.6%) | 107.2% (108.7%) | 124% (124%) | 126% (130%) | 115.1% (118.7%) | 111% (112%) | 111.2% (107.0%) | 118% (122%) | 113% (111%) | 84% (109%) | 129% (133%) | 109% (110%) |
| Managers & Senior Managers: [% utilisation] | 109.2% (109.4%) | 104.2% (106.8%) | 118% (117%) | 124% (127%) | 106.7% (109.5%) | 105% (106%) | 106.6% (101.6%) | 114% (118%) | 114% (115%) | 103% (94%) | 122% (127%) | 108% (109%) | ||||
| Qualified, but below Managers: [% utilisation] | 109.4% (110.2%) | 104.0% (103.7%) | 120% (121%) | 122% (122%) | 106.2% (107.7%) | 104% (105%) | 103.6% (104.0%) | 116% (118%) | 123% (101%) | 104% (96%) | 119% (122%) | 105% (104%) | ||||
| Unqualified: [% utilisation] | 104.2% (105.3%) | 101.2% (101.8%) | 116% (114%) | 122% (125%) | 104.2% (106.9%) | 102% (104%) | 101.4% (102.0%) | 109% (113%) | 109% (101%) | 100% (100%) | 113% (117%) | 103% (103%) |
Supporting Narrative
BDO
The averages produced were applicable to 01/02/2024-30/04/2024. This is in line with the BDO UK main/sole busy period for the Audit Stream. BDO UK's FTE weekly contracted hours range from 35 to 36.25 hours.
Crowe
The figures presented cover the three months ended 30/06/2024 (April - June).
Grant Thornton
At Grant Thornton, there is little seasonality and hence busy period data is similar to the annual data.
KPMG
KPMG total standard contracted hours are a 35 hour week.
PwC
The majority of PwC staff are contracted to a standard working week of 37.5 hours. The average utilisation across all grades equates to an average total working week of 41.6 hours and 44.3 hours in the peak reporting period (January to March).
8. Staff attrition
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Staff attrition | The rate at which staff leave the firm's audit practice | Average staff attrition rates by group of grades in the audit practice | Partners & Directors: [% attrition] | 11.4% (4.4%) | 3.4% (3.7%) | 7% (5%) | 5% (2%) | 8.0% (10.0%) | 3% (9%) | 6.9% (3.8%) | 7% (8%) | 6% (15%) | 5.31% 4.3%) | 8% (8%) | 0% (1.7%) |
| Managers & Senior Managers: [% attrition] | 19.4% (26.4%) | 16.2% (13.7%) | 17% (14%) | 10% (16%) | 21.1% (20.1%) | 15% (17%) | 12.2% (15.8%) | 16% (15%) | 23% (15%) | 11.22% 10.2%) | 16% (18%) | 11% (12.9%) | ||||
| Qualified, but below Managers: [% attrition] | 31.9% (43.7%) | 28.0% (35.0%) | 32% (23%) | 18% (23%) | 26.6% (31.9%) | 32% (30%) | 44.4% (45.0%) | 30% (28%) | 25% (30%) | 19.44% (27.3%) | 31% (38%) | 31.1% (20.7%) | ||||
| Unqualified: [% attrition] | 24.7% (26.3%) | 30.4% (21.5%) | 13% (19%) | 10% (10%) | 17.7% (18.0%) | 24% (25%) | 11.0% (17.1%) | 14% (16%) | 24% (24%) | 15.62% (28.8%) | 14% (12%) | 11.9% (13.0%) |
Supporting Narrative
EY
Includes all individuals who have left EY (including retirements); excludes internal transfers out of the audit practice. Due to the systems in place, it is not practical to split between "qualified, but below manager" and "unqualified". Therefore, this is reported as "senior" and "staff". All "staff" are unqualified. Seniors (including Assistant Managers), include unqualified, part qualified, and qualified.
KPMG
These percentages include staff who have moved from audit to other capabilities within KPMG.
PwC
PwC's average staff attrition was 18%, composed of 16% external attrition and 2% permanent internal transfers.
9. Training
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Training | To demonstrate the level of investment in training offered to partners and staff | Average number of planned mandatory training hours per person, and percentage of completion rates, by group of grades | Partners & Directors [Number of hours] | 42 (44) | 41.2 (39.0) | 35.4 (38.0) | 47 (43) | 52.9 (47.6) | 62 (74) | 28 (25.5) | 49 (52) | 27 (20) | 27 (32.2) | 49 (46) | 44 (44) |
| [% completion rate] | 99.9% (99.1%) | 96.5% (95.8%) | 99.6% (99.7%) | 100% (99%) | 94.2% (91.7%) | 100% (100%) | 98% (90%) | 99% (99%) | 95% (83%) | 93% (94%) | 100% (100%) | 97% (N/A) | ||||
| Managers & Senior Managers [Number of hours] | 42 (44) | 38.9 (36.0) | 35.9 (37.6) | 59 (61) | 53.4 (45.5) | 62 (70) | 28 (25.5) | 50 (47) | 27 (20) | 29.7 (35.2) | 45 (44) | 44 (44) | ||||
| [% completion rate] | 99.7% (99.1%) | 89.2% (89.6%) | 99.3% (99.1%) | 97% (95%) | 91.7% (91.0%) | 100% (100%) | 99% (84%) | 99% (99%) | 97% (89%) | 98% (91%) | 100% (100%) | 97% (N/A) | ||||
| Qualified, but below Managers [Number of hours] | 42 (44) | 26.1 (34.6) | 53.4 (55.4) | 67 (68) | 55.8 (49.7) | 58 (77) | 34 (25.5) | 45 (48) | 27 (20) | 62.7 (62.0) | 67 (67) | 44 (41) | ||||
| [% completion rate] | 99.6% (99.1%) | 86.4% (86.5%) | 99.2% (98.4%) | 98% (93%) | 93.9% (91.2%) | 100% (100%) | 97% (80%) | 98% (99%) | 97% (83%) | 97% (88%) | 100%(100%) | 97% (N/A) | ||||
| Unqualified [Number of hours] | 85 (74) | 35.2 (36.2) | 73.3 (74.5) | 79 (83) | 67.4 (69.0) | 93 (95) | 23 (17) | 67 (67) | 33 (26) | 91.3 (96.6) | 169 (128) | 63 (74) | ||||
| [% completion rate] | 99.1% (98.5%) | 99.8% (95.3%) | 99.6% (99.5%) | 98% (97%) | 91.1% (91.6%) | 100% (100%) | 97% (90%) | 98% (99%) | 84% (82%) | 98% (96%) | 100% (100%) | 89% (N/A) |
Supporting Narrative
BDO
Planned mandatory training hours have been calculated with reference to the agreed audit curriculum plan for the period July 2023 - June 2024. Firmwide mandatory training is excluded.
Crowe
The statistics are based on training that forms part of Crowe's mandatory audit training program. Partners and employees completed additional CPD, both mandatory and voluntary, in the period.
EY
Training hours include audit/accounting modules, independence, and role-specific learning. Needs are adapted annually based on regulatory changes, industry developments, technology, economy, environment, etc.
Forvis Mazars
Forvis Mazars has used 31 August as the period end date for both reporting years, serving as the cut-off for the start of any mandatory training courses included in the calculation of average planned hours and for completion rates. Some mandatory on-line training has a completion window straddling the period end date. Training completed after the period end date will show in the firm metrics as incomplete even though it is not overdue.
Grant Thornton
Training hours at Grant Thornton have reduced in 2024, as specific one-off training relating to the introduction of new audit software in the prior year was not repeated in 2024.
Johnston Carmichael
Johnston Carmichael improved its systems for recording and monitoring completions in 2024/25. Introduced new courses for seniors / supervisors in 2024/25. Mandated FRS 102 training for year 2 assistants and above in 2025. The Academy training (assistants to supervisors) is role specific and hence non-linear role progressions may skew year on year comparability.
KPMG
KPMG planned mandatory training hours are based on the minimum mandatory planned training hours applicable to each grade. In addition, staff will be required to do additional mandatory training for particular specialisms and accreditation.
PKF
There is a reduction in the centrally mandated technical training in comparison to the prior year as the 2023/24 year included mandated training for ISA 315 & 240 as well as a wholesale change to PKF's methodology. The 2025 population also includes an increased number of specialists for whom not all such mandated training was relevant to their role.
PwC
Average training hours for unqualified staff increased in 2024 due to the acceleration of training to first year graduates from second/third years, leading to a temporary increase in average training hours. See further details on page 78 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.
RSM
For qualified and above, the metric is based on average CPD hours per the ICAEW dashboard. RSM has mandatory Audit Quality days (minimum 10 a year) and the approach taken is to mandate the time and not specific courses. For unqualified staff, the mandatory training hours and % completion exclude eLearning modules. The completions rates for previous year were not tracked in sufficient detail to report on this as part of this metric.
10. Diversity
| Number | Area | Metric description | Indicator | Measurement | BDO 2025 (2024) | Crowe 2025 (2024) | Deloitte 2025 (2024) | EY 2025 (2024) | Forvis Mazars 2025 (2024) | Grant Thornton 2025 (2024) | Johnston Carmichael 2025 (2024) | KPMG 2025 (2024) | MHA 2025 (2024) | PKF 2025 (2024) | PwC 2025 (2024) | RSM 2025 (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Diversity | Gender and ethnic diversity of the firm's audit partnership | Percentage of individuals in the audit partnership, by gender and ethnicity | [% of women audit partners] | 23.8% (22.8%) | 28.1% (26.7%) | 33% (32%) | 28% (27%) | 32.6% (31.8%) | 29% (28%) | 10% (0%) | 26% (26%) | 27% (21%) | 19% (18%) | 31% (30%) | 28.6% (28.6%) |
| [% of ethnic minority audit partners] | 6.6% (7.0%) | 4.2% (4.4%) | 13% (12%) | 13% (14%) | 10.7% (9.9%) | 6% (4%) | 5% (6%) | 8% (10%) | 13% (18%) | 17% (12%) | 11% (11%) | 8.3% (8.3%) |
Supporting Narrative
BDO
"Partners who are aligned to the audit practice..." reflects all equity partners mapped to the BDO UK LLP Audit Stream, or who sit within a central infrastructure role.
Deloitte
Metric includes all Deloitte partners (both equity and salaried).
EY
Excludes partners who opted not to disclose gender or ethnicity.
KPMG
KPMG salaried partners are not included in this calculation, however these metrics including salaried partners can be found in KPMG's UK Transparency Report 2024.
PwC
Further details on PwC's diversity in audit can be found on page 86 of the 2024 PwC UK Transparency Report.