Key Takeaways
- ISA 320 requires the auditor to determine materiality for the financial statements as a whole and performance materiality as two separate decisions with two separate rationales. Both must be documented.
- The benchmark should be the financial measure most relevant to the entity's users: profit before tax for profitable commercial entities, revenue when profit is volatile, total assets for balance-sheet-focused entities, total expenses for grant-funded bodies.
- Percentage ranges are not prescribed by ISA 320 but represent established practice: PBT 5–10%, revenue 0.5–2%, total assets 0.5–2%, total expenses 0.5–2%, gross profit 1–5%.
- Qualitative factors under ISA 320.A3 move you within the range. The midpoint implies no factors were considered. A reviewer expects named factors with a stated direction.
- Performance materiality is typically 50–75% of overall materiality, driven by prior-year misstatement experience and the current-year control environment.
- Completion-stage reassessment under ISA 320.12 is mandatory if actual results differ from planning estimates. Missing it is a binary deficiency.
What ISA 320 requires you to decide
ISA 320.10 requires the auditor to determine materiality for the financial statements as a whole. This is overall materiality. ISA 320.11 requires the auditor to determine performance materiality, which is set lower than overall materiality to reduce the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds overall materiality.
These are two separate decisions with two separate rationales. The working paper must document both.
ISA 320.10 also requires the auditor to consider whether there are particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures for which misstatements of lesser amounts than overall materiality could reasonably be expected to influence economic decisions. If yes, the auditor sets a lower materiality level for those items. ISA 320.A10 gives the example of related party transactions or director remuneration, where users are sensitive to amounts well below overall materiality.
The standard does not prescribe benchmarks, percentages, or formulas. ISA 320.A4 lists factors the auditor considers when identifying an appropriate benchmark: the elements of the financial statements, whether there are items users tend to focus on, the nature of the entity, the entity's ownership structure, and how the entity is financed.
Documentation requirement
This deliberate ambiguity means the auditor's judgment is the product. The working paper must show why you chose the benchmark you chose, why you applied the percentage you applied, and why you adjusted (or didn't adjust) for qualitative factors. A materiality memo that records only the calculation without the reasoning fails ISA 320 on documentation grounds alone.
Selecting the benchmark: which financial measure for which industry
The benchmark should be the financial measure most relevant to the users of the financial statements. This varies by industry and entity type.
Profit before tax
The default benchmark for commercial entities where the primary users are equity investors or lenders focused on earnings capacity. Works well for manufacturing, wholesale, retail, professional services, and technology companies that are profitable and have stable earnings. ISA 320.A4 identifies profit before tax as a common benchmark for profit-oriented entities. The range is typically 5% to 10%.
The limitation: volatility. If profit fluctuates significantly between years (a construction company with large project timing differences, a seasonal retailer, a startup), the benchmark produces unstable materiality. A reviewer who sees materiality double or halve year-on-year because profit moved will question whether the benchmark is appropriate.
Revenue
The standard alternative when profit is volatile, near zero, or negative. Not-for-profit entities, loss-making entities, early-stage companies, and entities where the user base focuses on scale rather than profitability all fit here. Revenue is also the preferred benchmark for industries where top-line growth is the primary performance indicator: SaaS companies, media, telecommunications. The range is typically 0.5% to 2%.
Total assets
Works for entities where the balance sheet is the primary financial statement. Banks, insurance companies, real estate holding companies, and investment vehicles all have users focused on the asset base rather than earnings or revenue. For financial institutions, ISA 320.A4's reference to "how the entity is financed" points toward an asset-based benchmark. The range is typically 0.5% to 2% of total assets, though for banks the PCAOB and European regulators have accepted ranges as low as 0.25% to 1% of total equity.
Total expenses
Fits entities funded primarily by grants, subsidies, or allocated budgets, where the accountability question is about how funds were spent. Government-funded healthcare institutions, educational institutions, and charities fall here. The range is typically 0.5% to 2%.
Gross profit
Useful for entities with a thin margin between revenue and cost of sales where profit before tax is too volatile but revenue is too large. Distribution companies, commodity traders, and low-margin retailers sometimes justify gross profit as the benchmark. The range is typically 1% to 5%.
One benchmark, one rationale
You choose one benchmark and state why. If the entity type makes the choice obvious (a profitable manufacturer with stable earnings uses profit before tax), the rationale can be one sentence. If the entity is unusual (a loss-making healthcare provider funded partly by insurance reimbursement and partly by municipal subsidy), the rationale needs to address why you rejected the more common alternatives.
Percentage ranges by benchmark and industry type
The ranges below represent established practice across European firm methodologies. They are not prescribed by ISA 320, which deliberately avoids numbers. They represent the range within which a qualified auditor's judgment is unlikely to be challenged on review. Going outside these ranges requires explicit justification.
| Benchmark | Typical range | Common industries |
|---|---|---|
| Profit before tax | 5% to 10% | Manufacturing, wholesale, retail, professional services, technology (profitable) |
| Revenue | 0.5% to 2% | Not-for-profit, loss-making entities, SaaS, telecom, media, early-stage companies |
| Total assets | 0.5% to 2% | Real estate holding, investment vehicles, banks (lower end), insurance |
| Total expenses | 0.5% to 2% | Healthcare (publicly funded), education, charities, government-funded bodies |
| Gross profit | 1% to 5% | Distribution, commodity trading, low-margin retail |
Within each range, the position you choose depends on qualitative factors (covered in the next section). The midpoint is not the safe choice. It's the choice that implies you didn't consider the factors. A reviewer expects to see a documented reason for choosing the upper, middle, or lower portion of the range.
For listed entities (PIEs), practice tends toward the lower end of any range. Regulatory scrutiny from APAS, the FRC, or the AFM increases the risk that a materiality level at the top of the range will be challenged during inspection. For owner-managed SMEs where the shareholders are also the directors and the primary users are the tax authorities and the bank, the upper end of the range is more commonly accepted.
The qualitative adjustment: moving within the range
ISA 320.A3 identifies factors that may affect the identification of an appropriate benchmark and the determination of materiality. These are the qualitative factors that move you within the percentage range. The working paper should identify which factors apply and state the direction (higher or lower) and magnitude of the adjustment.
Factors that push materiality down
- PIE status or heightened regulatory scrutiny
- Public listing
- Known going concern indicators (where users will scrutinise numbers more closely)
- Related party transactions of material amounts
- Significant prior-year audit adjustments
- Weak internal controls over financial reporting
- Operating in a regulated industry (financial services, healthcare, utilities) where reporting accuracy has direct regulatory consequences
Factors that push materiality up
- Owner-management with a narrow user base
- A simple corporate structure with few estimates
- Strong internal controls with few or no prior-year misstatements
- Financial statements used primarily for tax compliance rather than investment decisions
- Low regulatory sensitivity in the entity's industry
What good documentation looks like
The adjustment is not arithmetic. You don't add 0.5% for each factor. You make a judgment call, weighted by relevance, and record it. A strong qualitative adjustment section might read: "Revenue benchmark applied at 1.2% (lower half of the 0.5%–2% range) because (1) the entity's bank covenant requires audited financial statements and the bank has previously queried misstatements above €50,000, and (2) the entity's construction contracts include progress billing estimates that carry inherent measurement uncertainty." That's two specific factors, a stated direction, and a point within the range.
Setting performance materiality under ISA 320.11
Performance materiality is not a fixed percentage of overall materiality. ISA 320.A12 states that the determination involves professional judgment and is affected by the auditor's understanding of the entity, including the nature and extent of misstatements identified in previous audits.
In practice, most firm methodologies set performance materiality between 50% and 75% of overall materiality. The position within that range depends on the same qualitative factors that drive benchmark selection, plus one additional input: the auditor's expectation of misstatements in the current period.
- Toward 75%: prior-year audits found few misstatements and the entity's control environment is stable.
- Toward 50%: prior-year audits found numerous misstatements (even if individually below materiality), or the entity has undergone significant changes (new ERP system, restructuring, new revenue streams).
Document the percentage chosen and the reason. "Performance materiality set at 60% of overall materiality (€102,000 of €170,000) because prior-year testing identified eight uncorrected misstatements totalling €31,000, indicating a moderate expectation of misstatements in the current period." That's defensible. "Performance materiality set at 60%" without reasoning is not.
Trivial misstatement (the threshold below which misstatements are clearly trivial under ISA 450.A2) is typically set at 3% to 5% of overall materiality. This is the posting threshold for the summary of unadjusted differences. Misstatements below this amount do not need to be accumulated unless they are qualitatively significant.
Worked example: materiality for Vermeer Zorg B.V. (healthcare)
Client scenario: Vermeer Zorg B.V. is a home healthcare provider based in Utrecht. Revenue is €18.4M, of which approximately 70% comes from health insurer reimbursements and 30% from municipal (gemeente) funding for social support services. The entity reports a profit before tax of €380,000 (a 2.1% margin). Total expenses are €18.0M. The entity has 240 employees. The prior-year audit identified four uncorrected misstatements totalling €22,000.
1. Select the benchmark
Profit before tax would give a materiality range of €19,000 to €38,000 (5%–10% of €380,000). This is extremely low relative to the entity's scale and would result in a sample size that makes the engagement economically unviable. The thin margin makes PBT an unstable benchmark. A €50,000 swing in reimbursement timing would halve the profit.
Revenue is a possibility, but Vermeer Zorg is not a growth-oriented entity. Its users (health insurers and the gemeente) are focused on whether funds were spent appropriately, not on top-line scale.
Total expenses (€18.0M) is the most relevant benchmark. The primary users are the health insurers and the municipal funders, both of whom focus on whether expenditure was incurred for the contracted purpose. ISA 320.A4's reference to "items on which particular users tend to focus their attention" points directly to the expenditure base.
2. Apply the percentage
The range for total expenses is 0.5% to 2%. The entity operates in a regulated industry (healthcare), is subject to reimbursement audits by the health insurers, and has a moderate history of misstatements (four items totalling €22,000 in the prior year). These factors push toward the lower half of the range.
Overall materiality: 1% of €18,000,000 = €180,000.
3. Set performance materiality
Prior-year misstatements were moderate (€22,000 aggregate on four items). No system changes occurred. Performance materiality at 65% of overall materiality: €117,000.
4. Set trivial misstatement threshold
5% of overall materiality: €9,000. Misstatements below €9,000 will not be accumulated unless qualitatively significant.
Worked example: materiality for Schwarz Logistik GmbH (logistics)
Client scenario: Schwarz Logistik GmbH is a mid-sized freight logistics company based in Hamburg with €62M in revenue. Profit before tax is €4.1M (a 6.6% margin). Total assets are €28M. The entity is owner-managed by two shareholders who are also the Geschäftsführer. The primary financial statement users are the two owners and the financing bank (ING, with a term loan covenant requiring audited HGB financial statements). Prior-year audit: one uncorrected misstatement of €8,000.
1. Select the benchmark
Profit before tax is stable (5.8% margin in the prior year, 6.6% this year) and the entity is a commercial, profit-oriented GmbH. The primary users (owners plus financing bank) both focus on profitability. PBT is the appropriate benchmark.
2. Apply the percentage
The range for PBT is 5% to 10%.
- Factors pushing up: owner-managed entity with a narrow user base (two shareholders plus one bank), simple corporate structure (no subsidiaries, no group), prior-year audit was clean (one uncorrected misstatement of €8,000).
- Factors pushing down: the ING loan covenant specifically requires audited financial statements, and the bank has historically queried adjustments.
Position: 7.5% (upper-middle of the range, reflecting the narrow user base offset by the bank covenant sensitivity).
Overall materiality: 7.5% of €4,100,000 = €307,500.
3. Set performance materiality
Prior-year audit found one misstatement of €8,000. Control environment is stable. Performance materiality at 75%: €230,000 (rounded from €230,625 for practical purposes).
4. Set trivial misstatement threshold
5% of overall materiality: €15,000 (rounded from €15,375).
What a reviewer sees across both examples
The benchmark decision is explained with reference to the entity's users. The percentage is positioned within the range using named qualitative factors. Performance materiality is set with a documented rationale that traces to prior-year results. Each step cross-references the relevant ISA 320 paragraph.
Practical checklist for your materiality memo
- Identify the primary users of the financial statements before selecting a benchmark. ISA 320.A4 anchors benchmark selection to the users, not to the entity type alone. Document who the users are (shareholders, bank, regulator, grant funder) in the opening sentence of the materiality memo.
- Select one benchmark with a documented rationale. If you considered alternatives before rejecting them, state them and explain why they were less appropriate. Reviewers flag materiality memos that record a benchmark without explaining the choice.
- Apply a percentage within the accepted range and document the qualitative factors that determined where within the range you landed. At minimum, name two factors and state the direction (upward or downward) of their effect.
- Set performance materiality as a percentage of overall materiality (typically 50%–75%) with a stated reason. Cross-reference the prior-year summary of unadjusted differences. If no prior-year misstatements existed, say so. If misstatements existed, state their total and explain their effect on the current-year PM percentage.
- At completion, revisit materiality under ISA 320.12. If actual financial results differ materially from the planning-stage figures used to calculate materiality, recalculate and assess the impact on audit procedures already performed. A reviewer who sees planning materiality based on interim revenue of €55M and actual revenue of €62M will expect to find a completion-stage reassessment.
- Record the trivial misstatement threshold and the percentage used. This is the ISA 450.A2 "clearly trivial" threshold. If any misstatement below this amount is qualitatively significant (related party, fraud indicator, covenant breach), document why it was accumulated despite falling below the threshold.
Common mistakes
The AFM has flagged materiality calculations where the benchmark percentage is applied without any recorded qualitative adjustment. A memo that reads "5% of PBT = €X" is not a materiality determination under ISA 320. It's a calculation. The determination requires judgment about where within the range to set the number and why. Recording no qualitative factors implies none were considered, which is a deficiency.
Firms that audit entities across different industries sometimes apply the same benchmark and percentage to every engagement. A 1% of revenue calculation works for a loss-making tech company but is too high for a €200M logistics firm with stable profits. ISA 320.A4 requires the benchmark to be relevant to the specific entity's users. Using a template default without client-specific assessment is the finding most commonly reported in quality review feedback.
Completion-stage materiality revision under ISA 320.12 is frequently missing. If planning materiality was set using forecast or interim figures and the actual results differ by more than 10%–15%, the auditor must reassess. The reassessment doesn't always change the number, but the assessment itself must be documented. Missing it is a binary deficiency.
Related products
Get practical audit insights, weekly.
No exam theory. Just what makes audits run faster.
No spam — we're auditors, not marketers.
Related Ciferi content
Related guides:
Put audit concepts into practice with these free tools:
Frequently asked questions
How do I choose the right materiality benchmark for a specific industry?
Select the benchmark most relevant to the entity's users under ISA 320.A4. Profit before tax is the default for profitable commercial entities (manufacturing, retail, services). Revenue works when profit is volatile, near zero, or for growth-focused entities (SaaS, telecom). Total assets suits balance-sheet-focused entities (banks, real estate, investment vehicles). Total expenses fits grant-funded or publicly funded entities (healthcare, education, charities). The key is documenting why the chosen benchmark reflects what users focus on.
What percentage range should I use for materiality?
Typical ranges are: profit before tax 5–10%, revenue 0.5–2%, total assets 0.5–2%, total expenses 0.5–2%, and gross profit 1–5%. The position within the range depends on qualitative factors including PIE status, regulatory scrutiny, prior-year misstatements, control environment quality, and user base complexity. The midpoint is not the safe choice — it implies no qualitative factors were considered.
What qualitative factors move materiality up or down within the range?
Factors pushing materiality down include PIE status, public listing, going concern indicators, significant related party transactions, prior-year audit adjustments, weak internal controls, and operating in a regulated industry. Factors pushing materiality up include owner-management with a narrow user base, simple corporate structure, strong controls with few prior-year misstatements, and financial statements used primarily for tax compliance.
How should I set performance materiality under ISA 320.11?
Performance materiality is typically set at 50–75% of overall materiality. Use 60–75% where prior-year audits found few misstatements and the control environment is stable. Use 50–60% where prior-year audits found numerous misstatements, the entity has undergone significant changes, or it is a first-year engagement. Document the percentage and the reason, cross-referencing the prior-year summary of unadjusted differences.
Do I need to reassess materiality at completion?
Yes. ISA 320.12 requires revision if the auditor becomes aware of information that would have changed the initial determination. If planning materiality was set using forecast or interim figures and actual results differ by more than 10–15%, the auditor must reassess. The reassessment does not always change the number, but the assessment itself must be documented. Missing it is a binary deficiency.
Further reading and source references
- IAASB Handbook 2024: the authoritative source for the complete ISA 320 text, including all application material on benchmark selection and qualitative factors.
- ISA 450, Evaluation of Misstatements Identified during the Audit: the companion standard for evaluating misstatements against materiality, including the "clearly trivial" threshold.
- ISA 530, Audit Sampling: performance materiality determines tolerable misstatement for sampling purposes.
- ISA 315 (Revised 2019), Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement: materiality interacts directly with risk assessment and the determination of significant risks.
- ICAEW, Materiality in the Audit of Financial Statements: a practical guide with worked examples across different entity types and industries.