What it is
At the planning stage the auditor compares current unaudited figures with prior audited figures and key ratios, looking for unusual or unexpected relationships that point to risks of material misstatement. The comparison is a risk assessment procedure under AU-C 315. It is different from a substantive analytical procedure, which needs a precise expectation and corroborated data.
This workbook compares 30 account lines, flags changes that exceed both a dollar threshold and a percentage threshold, records management’s explanation and whether it was corroborated, and shows which items are still open. A Ratios tab computes margins, liquidity, days outstanding, leverage and turnover for both periods and flags large moves. Tie-outs confirm that the balance sheet inputs balance.
When to use it
- At planning, using the unaudited trial balance, to focus the risk assessment before fieldwork.
- When the team needs documented evidence of the inquiries made about unusual fluctuations.
- For review engagements and compilations that use analytical comparisons.
What’s inside
- Dollar and percentage thresholds with a flag that needs both to be met
- Account comparison for 23 starter lines and 7 blank lines with explanation and corroboration columns
- Open and cleared status with a risk implication field
- Ratios tab with gross margin, operating margin, current and quick ratio, DSO, DIO, DPO, leverage, coverage and turnover
- Tie-outs for the balance sheet and gross profit
Standard cited
This template follows AU-C 315 / AU-C 520. It is written in our own words, except for phrases the standard requires the document to contain, with [bracketed placeholders] for client details, amounts in USD and dates as MM/DD/YYYY. Check it against the current standard and your firm’s methodology before use. See AU-C 315 explained, AU-C 520 explained.
Questions
Are analytical procedures required at planning?
Yes. AU-C 315 requires the auditor to perform analytical procedures as a risk assessment procedure. They help identify unusual transactions or events and amounts, ratios and trends that may indicate matters with audit implications.
How is this different from a substantive analytical procedure?
A substantive procedure under AU-C 520 requires an independently developed expectation, a threshold for investigating differences, and evidence about the reliability of the data. A preliminary comparison identifies where to look. It cannot by itself support an assertion, so a separate expectation workpaper is used for that.
How do I set the thresholds?
Set them below materiality-driven levels so that a misstatement you care about would not hide inside the allowed difference. Your methodology may tie them to performance materiality or to a fraction of it. They are inputs here with no defaults.
Is management’s explanation enough?
No. Corroborate it with evidence, such as contracts, price lists, volume data or board minutes. The status column shows an item as cleared only when an explanation is recorded and marked corroborated.
Related templates
- Analytical Procedures Expectation Workpaper (AU-C 520)
- Review Engagement Analytics and Inquiry Workpaper (AR-C 90)
- Audit Planning Memo (AU-C 300)
- Audit Risk Assessment Worksheet (SAS 145)
Last updated 11/05/2026. All free templates.