EY’s quality score is almost a full point higher than in our last report. However, it’s not clear
as yet if this is due to systematic and sustainable changes or simply a result of having a sample
that is better than the set from which it is taken. (As we’ve noted in the past, EY has bounced
around our table due to the high variability of its content.)
Considering first of all the 10% of content that scores 12.0 or above: these pieces score well

Here’s a thought: EY out-publishes every other firm by such a distance that if it cut 1 in every 5
pieces, and those pieces were its worst, it would be four places higher in our ranking and still
be the most prolific publisher of thought leadership in the world. As it is, it sits down here in
10th which is actually quite an achievement in itself for a firm that produces such an enormous
volume of material. In fact it manages, by comparison with other mass-producers like PwC and

EY has leapt up our ratings, but the jury is still out on whether they’ll be able to hold the spot: did they simply get lucky this
time round (ie, did we review a higher-than-average proportion of the good stuff), or is there something more sustainable
happening behind the scenes?
The team arguing for ‘lucky’ point to the consistency of the material we reviewed – or rather the lack thereof: material