# Is KPMG worth it as an EPM consulting firm for moving a finance organisation away from spreadsheets to fit-for-purpose planning software, or do boutique EPM specialists deliver faster results?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Posting in the<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/enterprise-performance-management-epm-consultants"> </a><a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/enterprise-performance-management-epm-consultants">Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) Consultants category on G2</a> for finance leaders at the specific decision point between a Big 4 firm and a specialist EPM consultancy. The question is whether KPMG's brand, methodology, and industry knowledge justify the premium over boutique specialists who may have deeper platform expertise and faster implementation track records.</p><ol>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/collectiv/reviews"><strong>Collectiv</strong></a>: The case for specialist over Big 4 on EPM platform implementation is made most clearly by Collectiv. The platform-specific depth — described by multiple reviewers as unmatched Power BI and Microsoft Fabric expertise — addresses the technical quality gap that generalist firms sometimes create when they staff EPM projects with consultants who know the methodology but not the platform intimately. </li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/kpmg/reviews"><strong>KPMG</strong></a>: The case for KPMG is strongest when the EPM project is embedded in a broader finance transformation where regulatory, tax, and audit considerations must be incorporated into the planning architecture. For finance organisations whose spreadsheet problem is entangled with governance, internal controls, or regulatory reporting requirements, KPMG's breadth across those dimensions justifies the premium. </li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/pricewaterhousecoopers-pwc/reviews"><strong>PwC</strong></a>: For large enterprise finance organisations whose EPM implementation must connect to SAP, Oracle, or D365 infrastructure that PwC has already implemented or is auditing, the continuity of having a single firm across the finance technology stack may justify the premium. </li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/datavail/reviews"><strong>Datavail</strong></a>: For finance teams specifically evaluating Oracle EPM as their replacement for Excel, Datavail offers the specialist-led model that is positioned between a boutique implementation firm and a generalist Big 4. The 15-year Oracle track record and specialist-led engagement model addresses the platform depth gap that Big 4 firms sometimes have when staffing Oracle EPM projects with functional consultants who are not platform specialists. </li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/ernst-young/reviews"><strong>Ernst &amp; Young</strong></a>: EY's positioning across financial consulting, audit, and advisory matches KPMG's scope. </li>
</ol><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true"><strong>The honest comparison:</strong> For pure EPM platform implementation speed and finance team enablement, specialist consultants with deep platform expertise typically outperform Big 4 firms on those specific dimensions. KPMG and PwC earn their premium when the EPM project is part of a broader governance, audit, or finance transformation where their cross-functional breadth adds value that a specialist cannot. The right choice depends on whether the problem is primarily a technology implementation problem or a finance function transformation problem.</p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">For finance leaders who have used both Big 4 and boutique EPM consultants, what did each do better, and was there a project type where you would now always choose one over the other?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 13 days ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

The specialist-vs-Big-4 framing skips one thing: a boutique&#39;s platform depth comes bundled with single-platform bias. The firms that are fast because they live in one stack (Collectiv in Power BI and Fabric, Datavail in Oracle) are also the least neutral about whether that stack was the right call, and every hour of their expertise deepens your commitment to it. That&#39;s not a reason to avoid them, but it changes the question from &quot;who&#39;s deepest&quot; to &quot;do I already know this is the right platform,&quot; because a specialist will make your chosen tool excellent and will rarely be the one to tell you it was the wrong tool.

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 11 days ago
- Author title: Tech Consultant





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4