Standards Comparison

    SOX

    Mandatory
    2002

    U.S. law mandating internal controls over financial reporting

    VS

    EU AI Act

    Mandatory
    2024

    EU regulation for risk-based AI safety and governance

    Quick Verdict

    SOX mandates financial reporting controls for US public companies via audits and certifications, while EU AI Act regulates AI systems risk-based for EU markets with conformity assessments. Companies adopt SOX for investor trust and legal compliance, AI Act for market access and safety.

    Financial Reporting

    SOX

    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

    Cost
    €€€
    Complexity
    Medium
    Implementation Time
    18-24 months

    Key Features

    • Mandates CEO/CFO certification of financial reports
    • Requires ICFR assessment and auditor attestation
    • Establishes PCAOB for audit firm oversight
    • Enforces auditor independence and rotation rules
    • Imposes criminal penalties for document tampering
    Artificial Intelligence

    EU AI Act

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Artificial Intelligence Act

    Cost
    €€€
    Complexity
    Medium
    Implementation Time
    18-24 months

    Key Features

    • Risk-based four-tier classification framework
    • Prohibitions on unacceptable AI practices
    • High-risk conformity assessment and CE marking
    • GPAI systemic risk evaluations and reporting
    • Lifecycle risk management and post-market monitoring

    Detailed Analysis

    A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.

    SOX Details

    What It Is

    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) is a U.S. federal regulation enacted post-Enron scandals. It mandates corporate accountability through internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and executive certifications. SOX employs a risk-based approach via COSO framework for control design, testing, and reporting.

    Key Components

    • **Three pillarsPCAOB oversight (Title I), auditor independence (Title II), executive accountability (Titles III-XI).
    • Core sections: 302/906 (certifications), 404 (ICFR assessment/attestation), 409 (real-time disclosures).
    • Built on COSO principles; no fixed control count, focuses on key controls like ITGC, segregation of duties.
    • Compliance model: annual management report, auditor attestation for most filers.

    Why Organizations Use It

    Public companies comply to avoid penalties, build investor trust, reduce restatements. Benefits include operational efficiency, fraud deterrence, M&A readiness. Enhances governance, lowers cost of capital.

    Implementation Overview

    Top-down risk scoping, documentation, testing, remediation cycles. Applies to U.S. public issuers; exemptions for smaller filers. Requires annual audits, continuous monitoring; phased rollout spans 18-24 months initially.

    EU AI Act Details

    What It Is

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, is a comprehensive regulation establishing the first horizontal framework for AI governance. Its primary purpose is to ensure AI systems are safe, transparent, and respect fundamental rights across sectors. It employs a **risk-based approachprohibiting unacceptable risks, regulating high-risk systems, imposing transparency on limited-risk, and minimal oversight on others.

    Key Components

    • **Four risk tiersprohibited practices, high-risk obligations (e.g., risk management, data governance, cybersecurity per Articles 9-15), GPAI model rules (Chapter V), transparency duties.
    • Over 100 requirements across lifecycle, with conformity assessments, CE marking, EU database registration.
    • Built on safety, transparency, fairness, accountability; presumption of conformity via harmonized standards.

    Why Organizations Use It

    • Mandatory compliance for EU market access, avoiding fines up to 7% global turnover.
    • Enhances risk management, builds trust, enables competitive differentiation in regulated sectors like healthcare, finance.

    Implementation Overview

    • Phased rollout (6-36 months); starts with AI inventory, classification, builds QMS, documentation, monitoring.
    • Applies to providers/deployers EU-wide; involves audits, notified bodies for high-risk.

    Key Differences

    Scope

    SOX
    Financial reporting & internal controls
    EU AI Act
    AI systems by risk levels & lifecycle

    Industry

    SOX
    US public companies & auditors
    EU AI Act
    All AI providers/users in EU

    Nature

    SOX
    US federal statute with SEC/PCAOB
    EU AI Act
    EU regulation risk-based prohibitions

    Testing

    SOX
    Annual ICFR audits & control testing
    EU AI Act
    Conformity assessments & post-market monitoring

    Penalties

    SOX
    Criminal fines up to $5M & 20 years prison
    EU AI Act
    Fines up to 7% global turnover

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Common questions about SOX and EU AI Act

    SOX FAQ

    EU AI Act FAQ

    You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

    Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

    Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform

    Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.

    100+ Standards & Regulations
    AI-Powered Insights
    Collaborative Assessments
    Actionable Recommendations

    Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages