Promises of ‘fast and easy’ threaten SOC credibility

Once a niche corner of the accounting world, an AICPA System and Organization Controls (SOC) report has become a badge of trust. But as SOC technology vendors flood the market with promises of faster, cheaper reports, CPAs who perform SOC examinations say the service itself is at risk of losing credibility.

Established in 2011, SOC reports are examinations performed by CPAs in accordance with the AICPA’s Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements to evaluate the controls over customer data that service organizations such as cloud providers or payroll processors have in place. The reports provide independent assurance to the service organization’s customers, aka user entities, that those controls are suitably designed and operating effectively.

The SOC examinations are now one of the most popular examinations of their type, and firms have developed large practices dedicated to SOC reporting.

In recent years, SOC’s success has inspired technology companies to develop tools to help streamline the SOC examinations and reporting process. CPAs who perform SOC examinations say these tech tools make the SOC process quicker and more efficient, but they express concern with tool vendor marketing campaigns that emphasize speed and put pressure on CPA firms to cut corners to stay competitive with high-volume SOC shops.

“[SOC] professionals are seeing indications that ‘fast and easy’ may come at the expense of quality and objectivity,” said Sean Linton, CPA/CITP, audit partner at EisnerAmper LLP in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area and chair of the AICPA Assurance Services Executive Committee’s SOC 2 Working Group.

Here’s what Linton and other SOC leaders are saying about the evolution of the SOC market and how firms and clients can ensure the reports achieve their goals — no matter which tools are used in their production.

THE RISE OF SOC TOOL VENDORS

SOC reports address various subject matters. The two most common are SOC 1^® and SOC 2^®. SOC 1 reports evaluate the service organization’s internal controls that are likely relevant to user entities’ internal controls over financial reporting. SOC 2 reports can address controls relevant to security, availability, or processing integrity of the systems the service organization uses to process users’ data and the confidentiality and privacy of the information these systems process. SOC 2 reports provide a level of detail sufficient to address the user’s vendor risk management needs and are restricted to specified parties with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the service organization’s system and the nature of services it provides.

It is with SOC 1 and especially SOC 2 reporting that some tool providers have aggressively marketed their services in sometimes questionable ways. Now numbering in the dozens, these tool vendors may promise compliance (a term never used in SOC 2 examinations) in mere weeks — or even just hours — and use slogans emphasizing speed and low anxiety or stress. Thanks to heavy investments — especially in search-engine optimization — these companies now dominate online search results for SOC 2 services, Linton said.

SOC leaders acknowledge the contributions of tool providers. For example, instead of having clients submit dozens of screenshots or Excel files, CPAs can use the tools to connect to a client’s systems and automatically pull data and evidence into a central, real-time dashboard.

“These tools have highlighted the opportunity for [SOC examiners] to incorporate modern technologies into their client interactions — assuming they maintain quality,” Linton said.

Because most of the new tool providers are not CPA firms, they cannot attest that the controls in place are effective and appropriate. Instead, some tool vendors have cultivated networks of accounting firms — often smaller ones, and sometimes with overseas operations — to complete the examinations. Some vendors refer clients to CPA firms that can perform the examinations. The marketing for these referrals sometimes alludes to producing thousands of SOC 2 reports per year.

WHAT’S THE ISSUE?

These tool vendors promising quick and easy SOC examinations have become a front door — or an intermediary — for clients seeking SOC 2 services. But some SOC leaders worry these companies are using their strong market position to set unrealistic expectations. Given those expectations, the quality of reports, especially those that appear boilerplate, is a concern.

By promising fast, cheap, and easy SOC reports, the tool vendors may pressure CPA firms to check the proverbial box instead of doing a deeper, more critical assessment of the security environment.

“These companies are trying to dictate the way [a SOC examination] is performed without an understanding of the professional standards that [SOC examiners] must adhere to,” Linton said.

Within these tool vendors’ cultivated networks, the possibility exists for a small number of CPA firms, with few SOC examiners, to sign off on high volumes of SOC 2 reports. That should be a concern for clients, Linton and others explained. A cheap SOC 2 report may fulfill the requirements of a contract, but it may come with obvious deficiencies that leave clients at risk.

“You just know it’s a template. You can compare any five of their reports, and they’re all exactly the same, with a different client logo on it,” said Terry O’Brien, CPA/CITP, a director at Schellman, a global firm focused on IT compliance and cybersecurity, and a member of the AICPA’s SOC 2 Working Group. A template approach also raises the specter of boilerplate report content.

Many clients are seeking SOC 2 reports to fulfill contractual requirements with business partners. But a savvy partner will spot a cookie-cutter report. And if a SOC 2 report is rejected, “it’s not worth the paper it’s on,” explained Jeff Cook, CPA, principal at IT-audit firm Fortreum Associates LLC and a member of the SOC 2 Working Group.

Just as bad, a lackluster report can leave companies unaware of their actual gaps and deficiencies.

“Companies who really do care about securing customer data within their systems value a proper [SOC examination],” Linton said. “Obviously, they don’t want findings — but they realize findings are an opportunity to improve controls.”

RISKS FOR CPAs

Rushed SOC examinations could spell trouble for CPAs, too — individually and for the profession as a whole. The volume of SOC reports being signed, often within days or weeks, may raise regulatory risks for the practitioner firms.

“The real risk is if a firm is not following the standards in their performance or reporting, they should be reported to the state board of accountancy,” Cook said.

Practitioners who accept SOC 2 referrals should also watch for conflicts of interest. Their independence could be questioned if they agree to unrealistic completion deadlines or if the referral platform is promising clients favorable outcomes.

“According to the [AICPA] Code of Professional Conduct, a CPA can actually be held liable for false claims made on its behalf by a third party,” Linton said, adding that the firm would have to demonstrate by omission or commission that it endorses a false claim.

Then there’s the bigger picture: A flood of low-quality SOC 2 reports could erode confidence in the service itself. SOC leaders warn that the backers of tool vendor services are eager to position themselves as more rigorous alternatives to capture more market share.

“Even if there are 100 good SOC 2 reports, the one bad one that people get their hands on, they’re posting it on LinkedIn, they’re posting on social media,” said Jeff Krull, CPA/CITP, principal and risk advisory service performance and optimization practice leader at Baker Tilly US in Philadelphia. Krull is also a member of the AICPA’s SOC 2 Working Group.

For their part, the vendors have argued they are providing tools that make SOC 2 more accessible and more efficient, which could benefit the service, the clients, and their customers.

But traditional SOC leaders say that the real question is about the pressure to commoditize the SOC 2 report.

HOW CAN SOC EXAMINERS RESPOND?

CPA firms face tough competition and difficult decisions in the SOC market. The pressure to match the speed and volume of SOC shops is contrary to CPA firms providing value through independence, professional skepticism, competent staff, partner involvement, and tailored examination procedures to fit each organization’s circumstances.

Across the board, SOC leaders must explain why quality work takes time and money — and why that price is worth paying to protect the client’s data, reputation, and relationships with customers and business partners.

“Middle-market firms are facing intense fee pressures,” Linton said. “They have to be able to tell their own story and explain to their clients the value that comes from a properly scoped, planned, and executed SOC 2 examination, and there’s a good story to be told.”

Whether or not firms accept referrals from a SOC tool vendor, they should be prepared to resist pressure to cut their hours or rush their work.

That could mean setting internal benchmarks to define what a thorough SOC 2 examination entails, so clients and staff understand the value involved.

WHAT CAN CLIENTS DO?

Rather than hunting for the cheapest deal, clients should apply their own judgment and independence when seeking a SOC 2 report. Before engaging a firm, clients should:

• Vet the CPA firm that will perform the SOC 2 attestation, including its size, capacity, and client references.
• Evaluate the firm’s qualifications, experience, and peer review results.
• Ask about the scope of the examination, the sampling procedures the CPA will use, and how the firm maintains its independence.
• Assess the offering. Is it unrealistically fast, easy, or cheap? Is the sales team placing excessive emphasis on bundled service offerings?

Even if you’ve already paid for a SOC 2 report, it’s worth examining the finished product to see if it will be acceptable for business partners and the purposes of the business itself.

“Does it seem the report is tailored to the specifics of the system being examined?” Linton asked. “Are the controls reflective of the risks in the respective industry, and are the test procedures appropriate to the controls?”

Additionally, a rushed or overly automated report may rely too heavily on inquiry, with the SOC examiner taking the client’s word on areas that require more thorough procedures.

FUTURE-PROOFING SOC 2 REPORTING AND EXAMINING

The AICPA and other accounting profession leaders are working on the issue on a larger scale. For example, the SOC 2 Working Group has been crafting educational resources for SOC 2 report users and assessing the usability of the SOC 2 report to ensure it meets users’ needs.

The AICPA is also exploring a SOC Quality Center, which could serve as a badge of quality for participating firms.

“You have to strike a balance between providing autonomy for the firms, and then also reinforcing [AICPA] member requirements and making sure that people are playing by the rules,” Linton said.

He thinks these changes in the SOC space could just be foreshadowing larger challenges for the profession: Tool vendors could soon seek opportunities in the larger market for traditional financial audits and other services related to technology, he said. (See, in this issue, “How AI Is Transforming the Audit — and What It Means for CPAs.”)

“The way we as a profession respond to this threat to SOC 2 is going to set a precedent for how we handle it in the future, when the crosshairs fall on traditional financial audits,” he said. “I think what comes out of this on the other end is a more modern approach to SOC 2 — but controlled and governed in a way that the markets can continue to have faith and trust in these reports.”

The SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3 marks are registered trademarks of the AICPA.

---

About the author

Andrew Kenney is a freelance writer based in Colorado. To comment on this article or to suggest an idea for another article, contact Jeff Drew at Jeff.Drew@aicpa-cima.com.

---

LEARNING RESOURCES

Introduction to SOC for Service Organizations Reporting

SOC for service organizations examinations can be effectively performed with this foundational knowledge covering system and organization control reporting guidance and common practice issues.

CPE SELF-STUDY

SOC 1 Planning, Executing, and Reporting

SOC 1 examination basics — from planning and executing the engagement to reporting — are reviewed to prepare you to perform the engagement or use the report.

CPE SELF-STUDY

SOC 2 Report Walkthrough

Understand the contents of each section of a SOC 2® report, with highlights on key items of interest.

April 7, 1–3 p.m. ET

WEBCAST

AICPA ENGAGE 26

The biggest event in the accounting profession will celebrate its 10th anniversary at the ARIA in Las Vegas.

June 8–11

CONFERENCE

For more information or to make a purchase, go to aicpa-cima.com/cpe-learning or call 888-777-7077.

---

MEMBER RESOURCES

Articles

“SOC for Service Organizations Engagements — Overview,” AICPA, Dec. 15, 2025

“A New Frontier: CPAs as AI System Evaluators,” JofA, Nov. 1, 2025

“Key Elements of a SOC 2 Report — Resources for Management,” AICPA, June 5, 2025

“Manage Change in Audit Technology Transformation,” JofA, April 1, 2024

Website

SOC 2® — SOC for Service Organizations: Trust Services Criteria