Professional Services
The "Big Five" and the other usual suspects are shockingly absent from our database. Professional services firms logged 117 canonical NPS disclosures, with a median of 81.0 — well above the database norm — Grassi, EPC Group, and Hire Ventures each reported a perfect 100.0, while mbaMission and several legacy accounting firms registered scores in the single digits.
The headline
None of the majors are disclosing NPS — smaller firms are using it as a differentiator.
Across 117 scored disclosures, the sector posted an average NPS of 73.4 and a median of 81.0. That median sits seven points above the corpus benchmark of 74, suggesting professional services firms disclose when performance is strong and benefit from sticky client relationships. The distribution is wide: eight companies hit 100.0, but seven fell below 10.0, reflecting the gap between boutique specialists and commoditized commodity advisors. The big story: none of the "Big Five" and the next level of well-known services companies are showing here — and this represents a big opportunity for the industry. And even more interesting: clients can start to demand more accountability on satisfaction numbers.
Consulting sub-sectors clustered near 84.5, accounting firms around 80.0, and staffing hybrids at 81.3. Real estate advisory disclosures — though few — carried a perfect 100.0 median. The sector's relative strength compared to the corpus owes much to repeat engagement models and the high switching costs that characterize advisory relationships.
NPS evolution
The time series shows steady volume growth but uneven medians. After a volatile 2017 (median 43.6, n=4), the sector stabilized in the low-to-mid 80s through 2021, dipped to 69.0 in 2024 as disclosure volume doubled, then recovered to 86.0 in the first half of 2026. The rebound coincides with a cohort of boutique AI consulting and healthcare advisory firms entering the dataset.
Disclosure volume
Annual disclosure counts climbed from single digits before 2020 to 23 in 2025, with 17 already recorded in the first six months of 2026. The acceleration tracks the broader transparency trend in B2B services and the professionalization of client-feedback programs at mid-market firms.
The big names — and the awkward silence
Before looking at who scored well, it is worth looking at who didn't show up at all. We searched the database for the firms that dominate the global professional-services landscape — the kinds of names that any C-suite reader would recognise. The result is striking: the largest firms in the world publish almost no customer NPS data about themselves.
The Big 5: zero published customer scores
Across Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG and Accenture, we found exactly zero canonical, scored, customer-facing NPS disclosures — combined. Deloitte appears in seven rows, but the only quoted score is a 2017 internal learning-&-development reading of −8.0; recent mentions are alliance announcements or benchmark commentary. PwC has five rows; one June 2026 disclosure cites "10–15% improvements in NPS" through an Amazon Connect engagement, but that's an unattributed delta with no baseline. Accenture's ten rows are all investment, partnership or benchmark mentions — never their own client NPS. EY appears in over 400 rows, but on inspection these are almost entirely other companies' scores that EY audited or referenced; not EY itself. KPMG has two rows, both generic playbook citations.
The interesting question is why. Three plausible reasons. Partnership structure: these firms aren't public companies under earnings-call pressure to disclose. Service-line complexity: a single number across audit + tax + advisory + consulting would mean almost nothing, and publishing five separate numbers invites comparison shopping. Risk asymmetry: a high number invites scrutiny ("which clients answered?"); a low number invites departure. The Big 5 have a lot to lose and little to gain from public NPS.
The strategy challengers: same silence, with one exception
We extended the search to the next tier — McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Oliver Wyman, Roland Berger, A.T. Kearney, L.E.K., EY-Parthenon, Strategy&, Huron, Booz Allen, Analysis Group — and the picture is even quieter. BCG, Oliver Wyman, Roland Berger, L.E.K., EY-Parthenon, Strategy&, Huron, Booz Allen and Analysis Group all return zero rows in our database. McKinsey has three (no scored customer disclosures; one internal "Way We Work" benchmark). Bain & Company, the firm that invented NPS, appears in 22 rows — every single one is a citation of their framework or trademark notice. Bain has never publicly disclosed its own customer NPS in our dataset. This is either ironic or instructive, depending on your reading.
The one notable exception is West Monroe, the Chicago-based digital consulting firm, which has disclosed NPS of 80 in both 2024 and 2025 — with sample-size context and methodology language that puts it firmly in the Credibility-Guide-style camp. Of the entire 17-firm comparison set above, only West Monroe behaves like the rest of the disclosing economy.
Mid-tier accounting: thin but present
Across BDO, Grant Thornton and Baker Tilly, we found three rows total. Grant Thornton disclosed an employee NPS of +48 in 2022 (eNPS, not customer). Baker Tilly appears once in 2024 in a strategy mention with no score. BDO returns zero rows.
So who is driving the 117 professional-services disclosures?
The bulk of the dataset is regional and boutique: specialist accounting firms like Baker Newman Noyes, Rehmann, Forvis Mazars, EisnerAmper and RKL; AI/digital consulting practices; and a long tail of niche staffing and advisory firms. The big names that own the professional-services category are conspicuously absent from the data.
Company stories
The biggest swing? Or not…
We found two scores for Deloitte but use caution — they do not appear to be canon. The scores traveled from −8.0 in mid-2017 to 62.0 by the end of 2022 — a 70-point delta. The first reading captured internal dissatisfaction with the firm's learning-and-development function during a corporate-learning benchmarking study; the later score reflected internal scoring for a campaign. The arc underscores the risk of conflating employee and client scores in a single time series — they must be seen only as outliers.
Perfect marks in 2026
EPC Group reported 100.0 twice this year — once in May and again in early June — citing top rankings in Microsoft Consulting AI sentiment surveys. Grassi posted 100.0 for its healthcare practice in June, while Hire Ventures hit the ceiling in February for HR consulting. Each disclosure mentioned post-engagement client surveys, suggesting small sample sizes and selectivity bias.
Negative territory
Only one negative score appears in the dataset: Deloitte's −8.0 in 2017, already discussed. The absence of recent negatives does not imply universal strength; firms with poor scores rarely disclose them publicly.
Fresh in 2026
Recent disclosures span accounting, legal talent, and niche consulting. Highlights from the first half of the year include:
- CX University — 93.0 for its customer-experience certification program, completed by 50,000+ professionals across 125+ countries.
- OMMAX — 90.0 for its digital consulting practice, based in Munich since 2011.
- RKL — 82.8 in September 2025, sustaining world-class status as a top accounting firm in Pennsylvania.
- Axiom — 73.0 for legal talent quality in Q1 2026, marking the second consecutive year above 70.
- Bishop Fleming — 79.0 for its Academies Audit Service, with 99% willing to recommend.
- Colliers Finland — 43.0 overall client satisfaction, reported in mid-June.
Older nuggets worth a second look
- Jolt Consulting Group — 91.0 in February 2016, an early high-water mark in the dataset.
- Sensiba San Filippo — 9.2 in July 2017, above the industry average of 7.7 but misleadingly low because the scale was 0–10, not −100 to +100; the firm won Inavero's Best of Accounting award that year.
- Rehmann — 79.0 in August 2017, four times the industry norm, also earning Inavero recognition.
- Career Partners International — 78.0 in November 2017, paired with 97% candidate satisfaction.
- Deloitte — −8.0 in July 2017, the dataset's only negative reading and a reminder that internal L&D programs face different stakeholder dynamics than client-facing advisory work.