Auditor Market Analysis
A forensic view of market concentration, auditor switching patterns, sector specialization, and fee benchmarking across the New Zealand charity audit market. Data reflects current auditor relationships from the Charities Services register.
Market Share by Tier
By Client Count
By Total Client Revenue
Market Share by Firm
Top 20 of 60 audit firms
| # | Firm | Tier | Clients | Client % | Client Revenue | Revenue % | Avg Revenue | Avg Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mid-Tier | 155 | 24.9% | $2.7B | 15.9% | $17.6M | 69.7 | |
| 2 | Mid-Tier | 48 | 7.7% | $1.4B | 8.4% | $30.2M | 72.4 | |
| 3 | Big 4 | 44 | 7.1% | $2.6B | 15.0% | $58.6M | 68.1 | |
| 4 | Other | 35 | 5.6% | $219.0M | 1.3% | $6.3M | 75.1 | |
| 5 | Mid-Tier | 33 | 5.3% | $525.4M | 3.1% | $15.9M | 69.0 | |
| 6 | Boutique | 33 | 5.3% | $231.9M | 1.4% | $7.0M | 71.0 | |
| 7 | Mid-Tier | 32 | 5.1% | $355.0M | 2.1% | $11.1M | 76.4 | |
| 8 | Mid-Tier | 30 | 4.8% | $259.9M | 1.5% | $8.7M | 73.0 | |
| 9 | Big 4 | 30 | 4.8% | $3.5B | 20.3% | $116.4M | 71.4 | |
| 10 | Big 4 | 29 | 4.7% | $1.1B | 6.5% | $38.2M | 67.4 | |
| 11 | Boutique | 28 | 4.5% | $448.2M | 2.6% | $16.0M | 68.8 | |
| 12 | Big 4 | 23 | 3.7% | $432.7M | 2.5% | $18.8M | 73.0 | |
| 13 | Mid-Tier | 22 | 3.5% | $278.3M | 1.6% | $12.6M | 73.0 | |
| 14 | Boutique | 8 | 1.3% | $107.8M | 0.6% | $13.5M | 68.2 | |
| 15 | Boutique | 8 | 1.3% | $1.7B | 9.6% | $206.9M | 67.0 | |
| 16 | Boutique | 4 | 0.6% | $205.4M | 1.2% | $51.3M | 72.9 | |
| 17 | Boutique | 4 | 0.6% | $11.8M | 0.1% | $3.0M | 47.2 | |
| 18 | Boutique | 3 | 0.5% | $12.7M | 0.1% | $4.2M | 65.4 | |
| 19 | Boutique | 2 | 0.3% | $24.2M | 0.1% | $12.1M | 49.0 | |
| 20 | Boutique | 2 | 0.3% | $49.3M | 0.3% | $24.6M | 84.5 |
Sector Specialization Matrix
ICNPO sector vs top 8 audit firms — dominant firm highlighted per sector
| Sector ▼ | BDO | Grant Thornton | KPMG | PKF | RSM | Silks Audit | Crowe | Moore Markhams | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 42 | 12 | 10 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 100 |
| 3 | 38 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 11 | 92 |
| 4 | 21 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 79 |
| 6 | 26 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 54 |
| 1 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 34 |
| 5 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 18 |
| 10 | 7 | — | 2 | 5 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | 17 |
| 9 | 4 | — | — | — | 2 | — | 1 | — | 7 |
| 8 | — | 1 | 2 | — | — | — | — | 1 | 4 |
| Arts & Culture | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2 |
| Other | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | 2 |
| Animal Welfare | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0 |
Per-Firm Sector Concentration
What % of each firm's clients are in their largest ICNPO sector — high concentration = sector-specialisation risk for the firm and its clients
| Audit Firm | Clients | Top Sector | Top Sector % | Sector HHI | Sectors Served | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audit New Zealand | 8 | 2 | 62.5% (5) | 4,375 | 4 | Concentrated |
| EY | 30 | 2 | 40.0% (12) | 2,289 | 7 | Specialised |
| Nexia | 8 | 3 | 37.5% (3) | 3,125 | 4 | Specialised |
| Moore Markhams | 30 | 3 | 36.7% (11) | 2,133 | 10 | Specialised |
| Deloitte | 23 | 3 | 34.8% (8) | 2,439 | 5 | Diversified |
| RSM | 33 | 2 | 33.3% (11) | 2,140 | 8 | Diversified |
| PKF | 35 | 3 | 31.4% (11) | 2,359 | 7 | Diversified |
| Crowe | 32 | 2 | 31.3% (10) | 1,992 | 8 | Diversified |
| Silks Audit | 33 | 3 | 30.3% (10) | 2,029 | 6 | Diversified |
| Grant Thornton | 48 | 4 | 29.2% (14) | 2,066 | 7 | Diversified |
| William Buck | 28 | 10 | 28.6% (8) | 1,811 | 8 | Diversified |
| PwC | 29 | 3 | 27.6% (8) | 2,057 | 6 | Diversified |
| Baker Tilly Staples Rodway | 22 | 3 | 27.3% (6) | 1,777 | 7 | Diversified |
| BDO | 155 | 2 | 27.1% (42) | 1,871 | 10 | Diversified |
| KPMG | 44 | 3 | 22.7% (10) | 1,798 | 8 | Diversified |
Filtered to firms with ≥5 charity clients. High concentration in one sector can signal deep specialisation (positive) or audit-quality risk if the firm lacks cross-sector diversity (negative). Sector HHI follows the standard market-concentration convention — 10,000 = 100% in one sector, 5,000 ≈ heavily concentrated, <2,500 = diversified.
Auditor Switching Tracker
Charities that changed auditors between financial years
| Charity | From | → | To | Year | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No auditor switches detected in the available data. | |||||
Fee Benchmarking by Tier
Audit fees where disclosed in annual returns
| Tier | Avg Fee | Median Fee | Min | Max | Fee Records | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big 4 | $55K | $61K | $27K | $70K | 4 | 3.2% |
| Mid-Tier | — | — | — | — | 0 | 0.0% |
| Boutique | $380K | $380K | $380K | $380K | 1 | 0.7% |
| Other | — | — | — | — | 0 | 0.0% |
Concentration Risk Analysis
Based on available data, the New Zealand charity audit market appears to be competitive with an HHI of 966. The top 5 firms serve 50.6% of audited charities by client count, and the market includes 60 distinct audit firms serving 622 charities with disclosed auditor relationships.
The HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) measures market concentration by summing the squares of each firm's market share percentage. A higher HHI suggests fewer firms control more of the market, which may indicate reduced competition and limited options for charities seeking audit services.
Methodology
Data Sources
Auditor relationships are sourced from the charity_service_providers table, which is populated from Charities Services annual returns. Financial data comes from charity_financials. Charity ratings and ICNPO sector classifications are from CharityData's proprietary scoring methodology.
Market Concentration (HHI)
The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is calculated as the sum of squared market share percentages for all firms: HHI = Σ(market_sharei)2. Each firm's market share is measured by client count as a percentage of all charities with a disclosed current auditor. HHI ranges from near 0 (many small firms) to 10,000 (one firm holds 100%).
Auditor Switching
A switch is detected when a charity has different auditor firm names across consecutive financial year records. Name normalization is applied to group variations (e.g., “PricewaterhouseCoopers” and “PwC” are treated as the same firm). Switches may reflect genuine auditor changes, firm mergers/rebranding, or data-entry variations that were not captured by normalization.
Fee Benchmarking
Audit fees are only available where charities disclose them in annual returns. Coverage is incomplete and may skew toward larger charities. Median fees are approximated by sorting available fee records and selecting the middle value.
Tier Classification
Big 4: PwC, KPMG, EY, Deloitte. Mid-Tier: Grant Thornton, BDO, Crowe, Baker Tilly Staples Rodway, RSM, Findex, Moore Markhams, Mazars, WHK. Boutique: other named firms with proper capitalization. Other: remaining entries.
Caveats
- Name normalization covers major firms but some boutique firm variants may appear as separate entries.
- Not all charities have a disclosed auditor — market share reflects only charities with known auditor relationships.
- Revenue figures are from the most recent available financial year and may not correspond exactly to the audit engagement period.
- ICNPO sector classification depends on the charity's registered sector; some charities may be misclassified or listed under a broad category.
Data sourced from Charities Services register and annual returns. Our datasets may not be complete. Automated analysis can produce errors. If you believe any data on this page is incorrect, please contact us at hello@charitydata.co.nz.
For informational purposes only. Not investment advice.