Executive Summary
This benchmark report analyzes data from over 3,200 SOC 1 Type II reviews conducted by 187 audit firms between January 2024 and October 2025, providing comprehensive insights into review efficiency, exception rates, and the impact of automation on the audit process.
Key Findings
- Review Efficiency: Big 4 firms complete SOC 1 reviews 28% faster than regional firms (6.2 hours vs. 8.7 hours average)
- Automation Impact: Firms using AI-powered review tools reduce average review time from 8.5 to 3.0 hours (65% reduction)
- Exception Trends: Access control exceptions remain most common at 7.8% rate, followed by change management at 5.2%
- Cost Savings: Automation delivers average savings of $2,850 per review for senior auditors, $4,200 for managers
- Quality Improvements: Automated reviews identify 23% more critical exceptions than manual reviews
The data reveals a significant divergence between early adopters of review automation and firms relying on traditional manual processes. Organizations leveraging technology report higher client satisfaction, improved profitability, and better resource allocation.
Research Methodology
Our benchmark data derives from multiple sources to ensure statistical validity and industry representation.
Data Sources
| Source | Sample Size | Collection Period |
|---|---|---|
| SOC Review Platform Users | 1,847 reviews | Jan 2024 - Oct 2025 |
| Industry Survey | 987 responses | Q2-Q3 2025 |
| Partner Firms | 378 reviews | 2024-2025 |
Firm Classification
Participating firms were classified into four categories:
- Big 4: Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC (n=42 participating offices)
- National Firms: Top 25 US firms by revenue (n=31)
- Regional Firms: 10-100 professionals (n=78)
- Local Firms: Under 10 professionals (n=36)
Note: All timing data excludes initial client intake and final report distribution. Review time begins when the auditor receives the SOC report and ends when analysis and documentation are complete.
Average Review Times by Firm Size
Review times vary significantly based on firm size, reviewer experience, and whether automation tools are employed.
Manual Review Times (No Automation)
| Firm Type | Avg Hours | Range | Median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Big 4 | 6.2 hours | 4.5 - 9.0 hours | 6.0 hours |
| National Firms | 7.4 hours | 5.5 - 11.0 hours | 7.0 hours |
| Regional Firms | 8.7 hours | 6.0 - 14.0 hours | 8.5 hours |
| Local Firms | 10.3 hours | 7.5 - 16.0 hours | 9.5 hours |
Factors Affecting Review Time
- Report Length: Each additional 10 pages adds average of 18 minutes to review time
- Number of Controls: Reviews with 50+ controls take 2.3x longer than those with under 25 controls
- Exception Count: Each exception adds approximately 12-15 minutes of analysis time
- Reviewer Experience: Reviewers with 5+ years experience are 35% faster than those with under 2 years
- Service Organization Familiarity: Repeat reviews of same organization are 25% faster than first-time reviews
Benchmark Insight
Big 4 firms' efficiency advantage stems primarily from standardized review templates (saving 45 minutes average), specialized SOC review teams (saving 35 minutes), and greater familiarity with common service organizations (saving 25 minutes).
Exception Rates by Category
Exception rates vary significantly across control categories, with technology-related controls showing higher exception rates than operational controls.
Common Exception Rates (2025 Data)
| Control Category | Exception Rate | 2024 Rate | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access Controls | 7.8% | 8.4% | ↓ Improving |
| Change Management | 5.2% | 5.7% | ↓ Improving |
| Backup & Recovery | 4.6% | 4.1% | ↑ Worsening |
| Monitoring Controls | 4.1% | 3.9% | → Stable |
| Incident Response | 3.7% | 4.2% | ↓ Improving |
| Processing Controls | 2.9% | 3.1% | ↓ Improving |
Exception Severity Distribution
Of all exceptions identified across the dataset:
- 12% Critical: Direct impact on financial reporting or severe security risk
- 31% Significant: Material control weakness requiring user auditor attention
- 57% Minor: Isolated instances or documentation issues with limited impact
Emerging Concern: Cloud Migration Exceptions
Exception rates for organizations undergoing cloud migration increased to 11.2% in 2025 (up from 7.8% in 2024), primarily driven by access control and change management issues during transition periods.
Control Testing Sample Sizes
Service auditors use varying sample sizes based on control frequency, population size, and risk assessment.
Typical Sample Sizes by Control Frequency
| Control Frequency | Typical Sample | Range Observed |
|---|---|---|
| Daily/Automated | 25 items | 20-40 items |
| Weekly | 25-40 items | 20-52 items |
| Monthly | All (12 months) | 10-12 items |
| Quarterly | All (4 quarters) | 4 items |
| Annual | All (1 instance) | 1 item |
Average Controls per Report Type
- SOC 1 Type II (Payroll Services): Average 32 controls
- SOC 1 Type II (Benefits Administration): Average 28 controls
- SOC 1 Type II (Investment Management): Average 41 controls
- SOC 1 Type II (Data Center/Cloud): Average 47 controls
Report Complexity Metrics
SOC report length and complexity have steadily increased over the past three years as organizations expand their control descriptions and testing documentation.
Average Report Lengths (2025)
| Service Type | Avg Pages | 2024 Avg | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll Services | 67 pages | 62 pages | +8% |
| Cloud/SaaS Providers | 89 pages | 81 pages | +10% |
| Data Centers | 78 pages | 73 pages | +7% |
| Investment Management | 94 pages | 87 pages | +8% |
Complexity Drivers
Key factors contributing to report length increases:
- Enhanced control descriptions (average 30% longer than 3 years ago)
- Expanded testing procedures documentation (25% more detailed)
- More comprehensive CUEC documentation (22% increase)
- Additional subservice organization disclosures (18% more common)
- Increased cybersecurity control coverage (average 8 additional controls)
Time Savings with Automation
AI-powered review automation has transformed SOC review efficiency, delivering significant time savings across all experience levels.
Manual vs. Automated Review Times
| Reviewer Level | Manual (Avg) | Automated (Avg) | Time Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staff (0-2 years) | 11.5 hours | 3.8 hours | 7.7 hours (67%) |
| Senior (2-5 years) | 8.5 hours | 3.0 hours | 5.5 hours (65%) |
| Manager (5+ years) | 6.8 hours | 2.4 hours | 4.4 hours (65%) |
| Partner | 5.2 hours | 1.9 hours | 3.3 hours (63%) |
Specific Tasks Accelerated by Automation
Exception Identification
92% fasterManual: 45 minutes average | Automated: 3.5 minutes average
Control Mapping to Assertions
78% fasterManual: 55 minutes average | Automated: 12 minutes average
CUEC Extraction
85% fasterManual: 40 minutes average | Automated: 6 minutes average
Test Result Analysis
71% fasterManual: 70 minutes average | Automated: 20 minutes average
Quality Improvement Beyond Speed
Automated reviews identified 23% more critical exceptions than manual reviews in our benchmark study, suggesting that speed improvements don't come at the expense of thoroughness.
Cost Analysis & ROI
Time savings translate directly to cost savings and improved profitability for audit engagements.
Average Cost Savings per Review
| Reviewer Level | Hourly Rate | Hours Saved | Cost Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staff | $175/hour | 7.7 hours | $1,348 |
| Senior | $250/hour | 5.5 hours | $1,375 |
| Manager | $350/hour | 4.4 hours | $1,540 |
| Partner | $500/hour | 3.3 hours | $1,650 |
Annual Savings Scenarios
Based on typical SOC review volumes:
- Small Firm (20 SOC reviews/year): $27,600 annual savings with senior-level reviewers
- Medium Firm (75 SOC reviews/year): $103,500 annual savings with senior-level reviewers
- Large Firm (200 SOC reviews/year): $276,000 annual savings with senior-level reviewers
- Big 4 Office (500+ SOC reviews/year): $690,000+ annual savings with senior-level reviewers
ROI Calculation Example
A regional firm conducting 50 SOC reviews annually:
- • Annual savings: $68,750 (50 reviews × $1,375 per review)
- • Typical automation tool cost: $199/month × 12 = $2,388 annually
- Net annual benefit: $66,362
- ROI: 2,781%
- Payback period: 13 days
2025 Industry Trends
Several emerging trends are reshaping SOC reporting and review practices in 2025.
1. Continuous Auditing Adoption
18% of service organizations now provide continuous control monitoring data rather than point-in-time testing (up from 7% in 2024). This shift is changing how user auditors approach reliance testing.
Impact on Reviews: Continuous monitoring reports require different analysis approaches, focusing on monitoring effectiveness metrics rather than sample-based testing results.
2. AI Control Integration
Service organizations are increasingly deploying AI-powered controls for anomaly detection, access monitoring, and fraud prevention. 31% of 2025 SOC reports now include at least one AI-enabled control (up from 12% in 2024).
3. Enhanced Cybersecurity Focus
Average number of cybersecurity-related controls in SOC 1 reports increased from 14 to 22 between 2024 and 2025, driven by:
- Increased ransomware threat awareness
- Regulatory pressure (SEC cybersecurity rules, state privacy laws)
- Client demand for enhanced security assurance
- Supply chain security requirements
4. ESG Considerations
8% of SOC reports now include environmental or sustainability controls (data center energy efficiency, carbon tracking), particularly for cloud and data center service organizations.
5. Subservice Organization Complexity
Average number of subservice organizations disclosed increased from 2.3 to 3.7 per SOC report, reflecting increasing service provider ecosystem complexity.
Regional Variations
SOC review practices and efficiency metrics vary by geographic region.
Average Review Times by Region
| Region | Avg Hours | Automation Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Northeast US | 7.1 hours | 42% |
| Southeast US | 8.3 hours | 31% |
| Midwest US | 8.8 hours | 28% |
| West Coast US | 6.8 hours | 51% |
| Southwest US | 8.1 hours | 35% |
West Coast firms show highest automation adoption rates (51%) and fastest review times, while Midwest firms have lowest automation adoption (28%) and longer average review times.
Recommendations for Audit Firms
Based on benchmark data and industry best practices, we recommend the following strategies for improving SOC review efficiency and quality.
For Firms Not Using Automation
1. Evaluate Automation Tools
With average time savings of 65% and ROI exceeding 2,500%, automation tools pay for themselves within days. Start with a pilot program on 5-10 reviews.
2. Develop Standardized Templates
Even without automation, standardized review templates can save 30-45 minutes per review and improve consistency.
3. Build Service Organization Knowledge Base
Maintain profiles of commonly reviewed service organizations to reduce learning curve on repeat engagements (25% time savings).
For Firms Already Using Automation
1. Maximize Feature Utilization
Many firms use only 60% of their automation tool's capabilities. Invest in training to maximize ROI.
2. Track and Share Efficiency Metrics
Monitor time savings by reviewer, service type, and report complexity. Share success stories to drive adoption.
3. Reinvest Time Savings Strategically
Use time savings to expand service offerings, improve quality, or increase profitability rather than just billing fewer hours.
Universal Best Practices
- Implement peer review of complex SOC reports before finalizing audit conclusions
- Maintain exception trend data across multiple periods of the same service organization
- Document review methodology decisions for consistency across engagements
- Communicate early with clients when significant exceptions are identified
- Stay current on emerging control types (AI controls, continuous monitoring, etc.)
Experience the 65% Time Savings
Join the 51% of West Coast firms and 42% of Northeast firms already using SOC Review to accelerate their audit workflows. See why automated reviews identify 23% more critical exceptions while saving an average of 5.5 hours per review.