Selecting an audit firm has traditionally come down to cost, reputation, industry experience, and a track record with the relevant frameworks. Those criteria still matter, but buyer research shows that compliance teams are now weighing a new factor more heavily than before.  

According to A-LIGN’s market survey of 500 senior compliance, security, and governance leaders, audit technology is now the top factor among organizations evaluating audit firms, ranking above cost, brand, and auditor experience. 88% of organizations say technology improves audit quality, and 63% expect greater efficiency and speed from a tech-enabled audit. 

Understanding what’s driving that shift, and what technology-enabled actually means, gives compliance teams a more complete framework for evaluating their current or prospective audit partners. 

Why technology has moved to the top of the list 

Compliance programs have grown significantly in scope. Most organizations are no longer managing a single framework. Running SOC 2, ISO 27001, HITRUST, and FedRAMP simultaneously has become common, often with the same internal team responsible for all of them. Two-thirds of organizations now spend more than three months preparing for a single audit. 

The result is that the audit process itself has become a substantial operational burden. Teams resubmit the same evidence year after year for frameworks that share significant control overlap. Context and decisions from prior audit cycles don’t carry forward, so each new cycle starts from scratch. Gaps in evidence aren’t identified until fieldwork is already underway, creating delays and rework at the worst possible time. 

These inefficiencies aren’t inevitable. They’re largely a function of how audit firms are set up to operate, and buyers have started factoring that into their selection process. 

What technology-enabled actually means 

For buyers, the relevant question isn’t whether a firm uses technology. It’s whether that technology addresses the specific problems that make audits slow and resource-intensive. 

There are four areas where audit technology makes the most measurable difference: 

Evidence reuse across cycles and frameworks. 

Audit technology that preserves prior-year evidence and maps it forward means teams aren’t rebuilding the same submissions from scratch every year. The same logic applies across frameworks — SOC 2 and ISO 27001 share a substantial number of controls, and technology that can recognize that overlap and harmonize frameworks eliminates the duplicate work that would otherwise fall entirely on the client. 

Gap identification before fieldwork begins. 

When evidence gaps surface after fieldwork has started, the options for addressing them without disrupting the timeline are limited. Audit technology that evaluates evidence completeness before the engagement formally begins gives teams time to close those gaps while it’s still straightforward to do so. 

Real-time engagement visibility. 

Tracking audit progress through email threads and status meetings is a coordination tax that adds up quickly. A well-built platform should handle that automatically, giving both the client and auditor a live view of where every request stands without anyone having to ask.  

Auditor judgment stays in the process. 

Technology reduces manual burden on repetitive, rule-based work. It doesn’t replace the judgment required to scope an audit accurately, interpret ambiguous evidence, or identify issues that don’t surface through automated checks. The firms applying technology effectively are using it to reduce the manual burden on both sides, not to substitute for the auditors responsible for the quality of the final report.  

That distinction matters more than it might seem. 53% of compliance professionals have concerns about AI in audits, with accountability and transparency ranking highest. A firm that can clearly explain what its AI does, what auditors review before anything is acted on, and how clients retain control over the process is operating at a different standard than one that simply claims to use AI. 

Four questions to ask when evaluating an audit firm’s technology 

These questions uncover whether a firm’s technology actually solves the problems compliance teams often deal with. 

Does evidence carry forward between audit cycles? 

If your team re-uploads the same documentation every year, the platform isn’t addressing one of the most common sources of audit inefficiency. Ask directly: does prior-year evidence roll forward automatically, or does your team rebuild from scratch each cycle? 

Can the firm assess evidence readiness before fieldwork starts? 

A firm with mature audit technology should be able to evaluate how well your current evidence maps to audit requirements before the engagement formally begins. If they can’t surface gaps proactively, there’s no intelligence in the process — just a request list sent after kickoff. 

How does the platform handle multiple frameworks? 

For organizations running more than one framework, ask specifically how shared controls are managed. Evidence submitted for one framework should apply to another without manual mapping on the client’s side. If it doesn’t, the overlap savings that should flow to the client end up as manual work instead. 

How is AI used, and what oversight exists? 

Ask the firm to explain specifically what its AI does, what auditors review before anything is acted on, and whether clients can adjust or disable AI features. A clear, detailed answer indicates the firm has thought carefully about responsible implementation. A vague one suggests they haven’t. 

Applying a sharper evaluation criteria 

The data from A-LIGN’s survey reflects a shift that’s already underway among the most sophisticated compliance buyers. Technology has moved up the list in large part because buyers have experienced firsthand what a manual, fragmented audit process costs them in time and resources. 

Cost and experience remain relevant. But an audit firm that can’t demonstrate how its technology reduces the burden on your team, year over year, is leaving a meaningful gap in what it offers. 

A-LIGN built A-SCEND to address each of these areas directly. To see how it works, visit our A-SCEND page.