Below is a comparison of MindBridge versus traditional audit analytics tools.
Criteria |
Traditional Audit Analytics Tools |
MindBridge |
Winner |
Coverage of testing |
100% of known areas of interest | 100% of known and unknown cases | MindBridge |
Proven usage |
Trusted, but outdated technology | Breakthrough technology, with growing evidence of its effectiveness |
Tie (MindBridge positioned to surpass) |
Knowledge curve (coding) |
100% of known areas of interest | Not required |
MindBridge |
Ease of use (user interface) |
Cumbersome, requires repetitive, extensive user training | Highly visual, intuitive with little-to-no training |
MindBridge |
Template (speed) |
Time-consuming to set up rules for each client file | Not required |
MindBridge |
Availability |
Dependent on ERS resource | Self-service | MindBridge |
Composition & depth of algorithms |
Rules are hand-crafted scripts and results are logged. | Packaged industry standard rules enhanced with automated, scientific algorithms, results are logged and exported | MindBridge |
False-positives handling |
Rules are created to handle each case | Once flagged, machine learning automatically excludes them from future analysis |
MindBridge |
Data ingestion |
Manual, labor-intensive |
Built-in, automated “smart ingestion” leveraging machine learning |
MindBridge |
Adherence to Audit Standards (IAS 240, CAS 240 & SAS 99) |
Subjective & selective: reliant on professional skepticism and experience to find potential financial misstatements | Objective & inclusive: AI risk-based analytic tests prescribed by the Center for Audit Quality, plus extended analysis that further improves audit assurance |
MindBridge |
Check out how we use the MindBridge Ai-Auditor for financial risk assessment.