Finance leaders often ask about SOX compliance and internal audit as if they are the same conversation. They are related, and in a lot of companies they end up being run by overlapping teams, but they are not actually the same function. Understanding where they overlap and where they diverge matters, especially for a company trying to figure out whether it needs one service, the other, or both at the same time.
Where the Two Functions Overlap
Both functions exist to give a company, and the people relying on its financial statements, confidence that risk is being managed properly. Both involve documenting processes, evaluating controls, and testing whether those controls actually work as designed. And in practice, a lot of the same skill set applies to both: understanding how transactions flow through a business, spotting where a process is vulnerable to error or fraud, and knowing how to communicate findings in a way that leads to real change rather than a report that sits unread.
Because of this overlap, many consulting firms staff both functions with people who move between the two, and companies frequently bring the same provider in for both rather than managing two separate vendor relationships.
Where They Actually Differ
SOX compliance work is narrowly focused on internal controls over financial reporting, meaning the specific processes and controls that affect the accuracy of the financial statements a public or soon-to-be-public company files. It is driven by a specific regulatory requirement under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the scope is defined by financial statement risk.
Internal audit has a much broader mandate. It covers operational efficiency, compliance with laws and internal policies, IT risk, fraud risk, and financial controls, not just the subset that touches external financial reporting. An internal audit function might spend a quarter reviewing procurement practices or vendor risk management, topics that would likely fall outside a SOX program’s scope entirely.
Reporting lines can differ too. SOX programs are usually driven by the CFO’s office because the requirement is tied directly to financial statement certification. Internal audit typically reports to the audit committee of the board, which is part of what gives it independence from day-to-day management.
Why Some Companies Choose to Bundle Both Services
For a growth-stage or PE-backed company building both functions at the same time, using one firm for SOX compliance consulting and internal audit outsourcing tends to reduce duplicated effort. Process narratives and risk assessments built for SOX purposes often inform the internal audit universe, and vice versa. A control gap found during SOX testing might point to a broader operational issue worth an internal audit deep dive, and a finding from an internal audit engagement might reveal a financial reporting risk that belongs in the SOX scope.
There is also a practical staffing argument. Building two separate internal teams, one for SOX and one for internal audit, is a heavy lift for a company that may not need either at full public-company scale yet. Working with a single outside partner that can flex resources across both functions as needed is often more efficient than hiring twice.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Consider a PE-backed company eighteen months from a planned exit or IPO. The finance team has grown quickly, but documentation and formal controls have not kept pace. A consulting partner might start by building out process narratives and a risk and control matrix for the SOX-relevant processes, while simultaneously helping the company stand up its first internal audit plan focused on the highest operational risks the board has flagged, things like vendor concentration or IT access management.
Over the following year, the two workstreams start to inform each other. Segregation of duties issues found during SOX walkthroughs get flagged for the internal audit plan the following quarter. Findings from an internal audit review of the procurement process lead to a new control being added to the SOX documentation because it turns out to affect how expenses get recorded. By the time the company is closer to its exit or listing, both functions are operating on a coordinated cycle rather than as two disconnected projects.
Choosing a Partner for Both Functions
If a company decides it wants one firm handling both, a few things are worth checking before signing on. Look for a team with genuine experience across both disciplines, ideally people with Big 4 backgrounds who have sat on both sides of the audit relationship, not a generalist advisory shop that added internal audit as an afterthought. A firm offering SOX compliance consulting should be able to clearly explain how its work would connect to a parallel internal audit outsourcing engagement rather than treating them as entirely separate service lines with no coordination between the teams.
It is also worth asking how the firm staffs both functions. Some providers use entirely separate teams internally, which can undercut a lot of the efficiency argument for bundling the services in the first place. The better setups have some overlap in staffing or, at minimum, a shared understanding of the company’s risk profile across both engagements, along with a senior partner who stays close to both workstreams from start to finish.
Pricing structure is worth clarifying too. A bundled engagement should still come with clear, separately scoped deliverables for each function, even if they share a single contract. That way, if the company later decides to bring one function in-house while keeping the other outsourced, the transition is straightforward rather than tangled up in a single undifferentiated fee arrangement.
A Common Timeline for Building Both Functions
For companies starting from close to zero on both fronts, a phased approach tends to work better than trying to stand up everything at once. The first quarter or two is usually spent on foundational work: initial risk assessments, process narratives for the most financially significant areas, and a first-pass audit universe. From there, SOX testing typically ramps up first if there is a hard filing deadline attached, while the internal audit plan gets built out in parallel at a slightly slower pace, often starting with one or two high-priority audits rather than the full annual plan.
By the end of the first year, most companies have a working SOX control framework covering their most significant processes and a small number of completed internal audits that have already generated useful findings for management and the board. The second year is usually where the two functions start to feel genuinely coordinated rather than newly built, with the audit plan and SOX scope both informed by a full year of real testing experience rather than assumptions made at the start.
Questions Worth Asking Before Choosing an Approach
Before deciding whether to run these as one bundled engagement or two separate ones, it helps to ask a few honest questions internally. How much bandwidth does the finance team actually have to manage two vendor relationships instead of one. Is there a hard external deadline, like an IPO filing, that should take priority over building out a broader internal audit function right away. And does the board or investor group have a specific expectation about which function they want visibility into first. The answers to these questions usually make the sequencing decision fairly clear, even before getting into which specific firm to work with.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do all companies need both SOX compliance and internal audit?
Not necessarily. SOX compliance is a specific regulatory requirement tied to being a public company or preparing to become one. Internal audit is broader and can be valuable for any growing company, public or private, that wants independent oversight of its operational and financial risks. Some private companies build an internal audit function well before SOX ever becomes a requirement for them.
Can the same team perform both SOX testing and internal audit work?
Often yes, particularly at smaller or mid-market companies where a single provider can flex staff across both engagements. The skill sets overlap significantly, though it is worth confirming the provider maintains appropriate independence and clear scoping between the two workstreams.
Which function should a company build first?
It usually depends on the company’s near-term catalyst. A company on a defined path to an IPO will likely prioritize SOX readiness first, since it is a hard regulatory requirement with a filing deadline attached. A PE-backed company without an imminent public listing might prioritize internal audit first if the sponsor is asking for broader risk oversight rather than SOX-specific controls.
Does bundling both services actually save money?
It can, mainly by reducing duplicated documentation and risk assessment work, and by avoiding the overhead of managing two separate vendor relationships. The savings depend on how well the provider actually coordinates the two functions rather than running them as entirely separate engagements under one invoice.
How long does it take to stand up both functions from scratch?
A reasonable timeline is somewhere between twelve and eighteen months to get both functions operating on a stable annual cycle, though a company under a tighter IPO timeline may need to compress the SOX side significantly while phasing in internal audit more gradually.
Leave a Reply