Audit and Assurance · The concept of audit and other assurance engagements

Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services for ACCA Audit and Assurance

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Other assurance engagements are non-audit services where a practitioner gives a conclusion that adds confidence to information. They include reviews (limited assurance) and sustainability and internal control reports. Agreed-upon procedures, compilations and due diligence are normally related services with no assurance. Identify the level of assurance and the report form.

Understand Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services

An assurance engagement is one where a practitioner gives a conclusion that increases the confidence of intended users in a subject matter, other than the responsible party. An audit of financial statements is the best known example. It gives reasonable assurance and a positive opinion. But many other engagements exist, and AA tests whether you can tell them apart.

A review engagement gives limited assurance. The work is mainly enquiry and analytical procedures, so it is less than an audit. The conclusion is worded negatively: nothing has come to our attention to suggest the information is materially misstated. Examples are a review of interim financial information or a review of a small company's accounts where no audit is required.

Other assurance engagements cover subject matter beyond historical financial statements. Examples are sustainability or environmental reports and reports on internal controls (for example, a report on the effectiveness of controls at a service organisation). These can be given at reasonable or limited assurance. The level must be stated clearly in the report.

Some services give no assurance. In an agreed-upon procedures engagement, the practitioner carries out procedures agreed with the client and reports the factual findings. The users draw their own conclusions. No opinion or conclusion is given. In a compilation engagement, the accountant helps management prepare financial information from records, using accounting expertise. The accountant does not test or verify it, so no assurance is given.

Due diligence work on a target before an acquisition is normally an advisory service. The practitioner reports findings to the client and gives no assurance conclusion. It would be assurance only if the engagement terms provided for a conclusion.

The key test is simple. Ask: is a conclusion given? If yes, it is assurance. Then ask: is it positive (reasonable) or negative (limited)? If only facts, advice or presentation are provided, it is a related service.

Key rules to remember

Audit: Reasonable assurance → positive opinion; High but not absolute level of assurance. Evidence is obtained through a full range of procedures.
Review: Limited assurance → negative-form conclusion; Mainly enquiry and analytical procedures. Wording: nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe the information is materially misstated.
Agreed-upon procedures: Agreed procedures → factual findings → no assurance; Users form their own conclusions. Report use is usually restricted to the parties who agreed the procedures.
Compilation: Management's records + accountant's expertise → financial information → no assurance; No verification of the information is performed.
Three-party relationship: Practitioner + responsible party + intended users; Required for assurance engagements. Subject matter must be suitable and criteria must be available.

How to solve Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services questions

Use this method for any question on assurance and related services.

1Identify the subject matter: financial statements, controls, sustainability data, a target company, or something else.
2Decide whether the practitioner gives a conclusion. If not, it is a related service such as agreed-upon procedures or compilation.
3If a conclusion is given, state the level: reasonable (positive opinion) or limited (negative-form conclusion).
4State the nature of the work that follows from the level: full evidence gathering for reasonable, enquiry and analytics for limited.
5Describe the report form: opinion, negative conclusion, or factual findings only.
6Note who the users are and any restriction on use or distribution of the report.
7Apply to the scenario: say which engagement suits the client and why, using facts given.

Quickest way: Conclusion test

When to use it: Use for Section A and OT case questions that ask you to classify an engagement or its assurance level.

Look for the output: opinion, conclusion, findings or prepared information.
Opinion = audit (positive, reasonable). Negative-form conclusion = review (limited).
Findings only = agreed-upon procedures. Prepared information = compilation. Both give no assurance.
Eliminate options that say an agreed-upon procedures or compilation engagement gives limited assurance.

Common mistakes in Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services

Saying agreed-upon procedures give limited assurance.
Students see that the work is less than an audit and assume some assurance exists.
Fix: Remember that no conclusion is given, only factual findings. So it gives no assurance.
Treating a review as a smaller audit with a positive opinion.
Both involve the practitioner reporting on financial information.
Fix: A review uses enquiry and analytical procedures and gives a negative-form conclusion at limited assurance.
Saying compilation gives assurance because an accountant is involved.
The accountant's name is linked to the information.
Fix: The accountant does not verify the information. State that no assurance is provided.
Assuming other assurance engagements always give limited assurance.
They are seen as less important than audit.
Fix: Sustainability and internal control reports can be reasonable or limited. The engagement terms set the level.
Writing that an audit gives absolute assurance.
Students contrast it with weaker engagements and overstate it.
Fix: Say reasonable assurance, which is high but not absolute, because of inherent limitations.

Worked examples

Example 1

A small company is not required to have an audit. Its bank asks for assurance on the annual financial statements at lower cost than an audit. Recommend an engagement type and explain the assurance and report wording.

Show the solution

The subject matter is historical financial statements, and the bank wants some assurance.
A review engagement fits. It costs less because the work is mainly enquiry and analytical procedures.
The level is limited assurance, which is lower than the reasonable assurance of an audit.
The conclusion is in negative form: nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe the statements are materially misstated.
The bank should understand that less evidence is gathered, so the risk of missing a misstatement is higher than in an audit.

Answer: A review engagement giving limited assurance, with a negative-form conclusion. It is cheaper than an audit but gives less comfort.

Example 2

A lender asks an accountant to confirm that the client's receivables ledger totals agree to the aged listing and to list any balances over 90 days. The lender will decide what to do with the results. Classify the engagement and describe the report.

Show the solution

The procedures have been specified by the parties, not chosen by the accountant to reach a conclusion.
The lender wants facts and will draw its own conclusions.
This is an agreed-upon procedures engagement, which is a related service.
No opinion or conclusion is given, so there is no assurance.
The report lists the procedures performed and the factual findings, for example the agreement of totals and the balances over 90 days. Use is normally restricted to the parties who agreed the procedures.

Answer: An agreed-upon procedures engagement. The report gives factual findings only and provides no assurance.

Exam tips

Always state the level of assurance and the wording of the conclusion. These are the easy marks.
In OT questions, check if the option mentions an opinion or conclusion. If none, the answer is a no-assurance service.
In Section C, tie your answer to the scenario: who the users are, and why a review or agreed-upon procedures suits them.
Use the correct terms: reasonable, limited, positive, negative form, factual findings.
Do not write that review or other assurance work is the same as an audit. Always give the difference.

Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Other Assurance Engagements and Related Services: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between an audit and a review engagement?

An audit gives reasonable assurance and a positive opinion, based on extensive evidence. A review gives limited assurance and a negative-form conclusion, based mainly on enquiry and analytical procedures. A review costs less but gives less comfort.

How are agreed-upon procedures different from an audit?

In an audit the auditor chooses procedures to form an opinion. In agreed-upon procedures the parties set the procedures and the practitioner reports factual findings only. No opinion is given and users reach their own conclusions.

What is a compilation engagement in ACCA AA?

It is where an accountant helps management prepare financial information using accounting expertise. The accountant does not verify the information. The engagement gives no assurance.

Which other engagements count as assurance?

Examples are reports on sustainability and on internal controls. Each can be given at reasonable or limited assurance depending on the terms and the work performed. Due diligence on an acquisition target is normally an advisory service reporting findings to the client, so it is not assurance unless the terms provide a conclusion.