How Much Does an Impairment Test (IAS 36 / FER 27) Cost? Price and Fees (France & Switzerland)

How much does an impairment test under IAS 36 / FER 27 cost? Intervals by engagement size, in Switzerland and France.

Introduction: how much does an impairment test cost in 2026?

An impairment test costs CHF 20,000 to 40,000 for an SME with a single cash-generating unit (CGU) and a simple goodwill (EUR 15,000 to 30,000 in France), and CHF 40,000 to 150,000 for a mid-cap or listed company with several CGUs (EUR 30,000 to 120,000). Allow two to four weeks for a simple test, six to ten for a multi-CGU test.

These intervals are drawn from Hectelion's market observations relative to its competitors, in France as in Switzerland, on asset impairment testing engagements under IAS 36 and Swiss GAAP FER 27. The number of cash-generating units to test, the quality of the available business plan and the external auditor's level of scrutiny explain most of the gap between the two tiers.

« An asset is impaired when its carrying amount exceeds its recoverable amount, defined as the higher of fair value less costs of disposal and value in use. » — IASB, IAS 36 paragraph 6.

The budget question is often raised too late, a few weeks before year-end closing, when the auditor flags a watch item on a goodwill or a brand. Three questions then dominate: can the test be run internally or is an independent valuer required; how many CGUs really need to be tested; and is the cost proportionate to the accounting stake, knowing that a high-rate environment and a wave of goodwills from 2021-2023 acquisitions make 2026 particularly exposed to impairments. The answers shape the test's robustness before the auditor far more than a few thousand francs of gap between quotes.

This article gives the price intervals at a glance, details what drives the bill, describes billing and the engagement's course, compares provider types, explains how to reduce the cost without losing defensibility before the auditor, lists the five costly mistakes, offers two worked cases, one Swiss, one French, then answers the ten most frequent questions.

Prices at a glance: two tiers, two countries

Engagement profile	Switzerland (CHF)	France (EUR)	Typical use
SME, one CGU, simple goodwill	20,000 to 40,000	15,000 to 30,000	A single goodwill or brand to test annually
Mid-cap or listed company, several CGUs	40,000 to 150,000	30,000 to 120,000	Multi-activity group, several allocated goodwills

Indicative intervals from Hectelion's market observations relative to its competitors in France and Switzerland, 2026. Excluding tax and disbursements.

The tier follows from the number of CGUs to test and the complexity of the allocated goodwill, not from revenue size alone: a single-activity SME with a single goodwill stays in the first tier even with a sizeable balance sheet, while a multi-activity group quickly moves to the second as soon as several CGUs must be tested separately. Our complete impairment testing guide details the IAS 36 and FER 27 methodology in five steps; this article focuses on the budget decision.

Secure your next impairment test at the right cost

The scope of an impairment test is calibrated on the number of CGUs actually exposed and on your auditor's expectations, not on a standard package. Book a free, confidential call: we review your CGUs, your business plan and the corresponding budget, before any commitment.

Acontos: a first online reading of your assets

Before going into detail, note that Hectelion has developed Acontos, an online tool for audit, due diligence and business valuation, powered by Claude Sonnet 5 by Anthropic and calibrated by Hectelion's methodology.

From a company's accounts, it produces in a few minutes a first structured reading, normalised EBITDA and sector multiples, free of charge and without retaining any document. Launch the simulator on your company: this first pass does not replace a standards-compliant impairment test, but it gives a first order of magnitude of an activity's recoverable amount before mandating a formal test.

What drives the price: number of CGUs, business plan, auditor scrutiny

First, the number of cash-generating units to test, the primary determinant of the budget. A single goodwill allocated to a single CGU is tested in a few weeks; a group that allocates its goodwill to four or five distinct CGUs multiplies the adjusted WACC calculations, the business plans to review and the sensitivity analyses to document separately.

Second, the quality of the available business plan. A recent business plan, consistent with past performance and already challenged internally, strongly reduces the valuer time needed to build the value in use. A dated, optimistic business plan, never confronted with actual results, requires reworking before it can be updated, which adds to the bill and lengthens the timeline. A targeted financial due diligence on this business plan, even a limited one, often avoids this reworking upstream of the test.

Third, the availability of market data for fair value. When recent comparable transactions exist in the sector, the second approach to the recoverable amount is built quickly; absent comparables, the valuer must widen the search or weight value in use more heavily, which adds work time.

Fourth, the external auditor's level of scrutiny. A Big Four firm that demands an in-depth sensitivity analysis, several review iterations and a contradictory defence engages the valuer far more than a statutory auditor who validates an already robust test at the first presentation. This factor, specific to each audit relationship, explains part of the gap observed between two engagements of comparable size.

Finally, the country and the provider: at equivalent scope, French fees are generally around 20 to 25% lower than Swiss fees, reflecting the general cost level, and the gap between provider types, from a large audit firm to a specialised valuation boutique, can exceed double for the same engagement title.

Impairment testing or business valuation: which budget for which objective

Impairment testing and business valuation mobilise similar methods, DCF, market multiples, WACC, but serve different objectives and budgets. The impairment test is a standardised accounting procedure, governed by IAS 36 or FER 27, meant to verify the balance sheet value of an already-held asset; its cost, CHF 20,000 to 150,000 depending on complexity, reflects a compliance exercise documented for the auditor.

Business valuation, on the other hand, serves to set a transaction price, a share value or a negotiation base, and mobilises a different, often broader, set of assumptions than a single CGU. The two exercises overlap in one frequent case: a purchase price allocation (PPA) conducted during an acquisition determines the initial goodwill, which the impairment test then tests every year thereafter. A poorly calibrated acquisition business plan at the time of the PPA finds itself, two or three years later, at the heart of a costly impairment to document.

Fixed fee, deliverables and disbursements: how an impairment test is billed

A fixed fee per CGU and per complexity level is the dominant practice: the engagement letter lists the number of CGUs covered, the methods deployed (value in use, fair value or both), the adjusted WACC calculation, the sensitivity analysis and the format of the methodological report intended for the auditor. Each additional CGU beyond the initial scope is priced separately: it is the clearest structure for comparing quotes.

Check three inclusions before signing: the number of iterations planned with the external auditor, on which the smoothness of closing depends; the depth of the sensitivity analysis, which has become the leading watch point for regulators and Big Four firms since 2020; and the treatment of disbursements, travel, access to comparable transaction databases, generally rebilled at cost. A test whose report does not withstand the auditor's challenge loses most of its value: the valuer's ability to support their assumptions is part of the scope to require, not just the written deliverable.

Course and timeline: two to ten weeks depending on the number of CGUs

The engagement opens with scoping: reviewing the scope, identifying the CGUs and allocated goodwills, collecting the business plan and any impairment indicators. For an SME with a single CGU, the test then runs over two to four weeks: building the value in use and, where applicable, fair value, sensitivity analysis, methodological report.

For a mid-cap or listed company with several CGUs, allow six to ten weeks: reviewing each business plan, calculating the adjusted WACC per CGU, sequentially building the recoverable amounts, consolidating results and iterating with the external auditor on the most sensitive CGUs. Multi-jurisdiction groups, with different accounting frameworks by entity, extend beyond this, coordination adding to the analysis.

The optimal calendar places the test's launch six to eight weeks before closing, to allow time for auditor iterations without the pressure of the final days. A test launched too late, within the two weeks preceding closing, exposes to methodological concessions made under urgency rather than rigour.

Comparing providers: Big Four, specialised boutique, in-house valuation

The Big Four and large audit networks naturally work on listed groups and multi-jurisdiction files: large teams, proven internal standards, fees accordingly, at the high end of the intervals. Their advantage lies in proximity to the audit teams themselves, which sometimes eases validation, provided the valuer's economic independence remains demonstrable before the auditor.

Specialised valuation boutiques cover the core SME and mid-cap market: the same methods on the essentials, WACC adjusted for specific risk, documented sensitivity analysis, a tight team built around a senior valuer who handles the file personally, more contained fees. This is the segment Hectelion works in, with economic independence from traditional audit firms, a criterion increasingly demanded by Big Four auditors themselves.

A fully in-house test, finally, remains possible for groups with a well-staffed financial control team, subject to the external auditor's review. It costs less in external fees but shifts the methodological risk onto the internal team, which must then demonstrate its own independence of judgment against assumptions often built by the same people who drove the initial acquisition.

2026 trends: rates, a wave of goodwills and AI pressure on prices

Three dynamics shape the impairment testing market in 2026. The first is the rate environment, which mechanically raises the WACC and compresses discounted values in use, making impairments more frequent than under lower rates. The second is the wave of goodwills from 2021-2023 acquisitions, now under mandatory annual testing and particularly exposed where acquisition business plans did not materialise. The third is heightened auditor and regulator scrutiny on documenting assumptions, which lengthens iterations and weighs on the budget.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to compress the time spent on data collection and structuring, extracting accounts, researching sector comparables, building sensitivity tables, which exerts downward pressure on the most standardised engagements, single-CGU SMEs with an already solid business plan. What AI does not replace remains the paying core of the engagement: judgment on the robustness of a business plan, the contradictory dialogue with the auditor and the defence of the assumptions retained before a regulator.

How to reduce the cost of an impairment test without losing defensibility

First, update the business plan before mandating the valuer rather than during the engagement. A business plan already challenged by the finance department, consistent with recent performance, saves several days of work the valuer would otherwise spend reworking it before it can be updated.

Second, precisely scope the CGU perimeter before requesting quotes. A brief listing the number of CGUs, the allocated goodwills and any impairment indicators already identified allows comparing offers on a strictly identical scope and avoids paying for an exploratory review billed by the hour.

Third, group iterations with the auditor rather than multiplying them. A structured presentation from the first pass, with the sensitivity analysis already quantified, reduces the back-and-forth that inflates billed time on the most scrutinised files.

Fourth, do not wait until the last moment. A test launched six to eight weeks before closing, rather than in the urgency of the final two weeks, avoids the surcharge that any expert engagement applies to compressed timelines.

Finally, for groups testing the same CGUs every year, negotiate a discount on recurring engagements: the market practice observed by Hectelion sits between 30 and 40% from the second year onward, the reference business plan and WACC needing only an update rather than a full rebuild. Reducing cost should never reduce the depth of the sensitivity analysis: it is, above all, what protects the test before the auditor.

The 5 costly mistakes

Mistake 1: Mandating the valuer too late in the closing calendar

A test launched two weeks before closing forces an urgently reinforced team, reduces iteration time with the auditor and increases the risk of poorly documented methodological concessions. The urgency surcharge can exceed 20% of the initial budget, not counting the risk of an audit qualification if the test cannot be finalised in time.

Mistake 2: Underestimating the number of CGUs actually involved in the quote

A poorly scoped initial perimeter, which discovers a second or third CGU to test separately mid-engagement, generates costly, unanticipated amendments. Serious upstream scoping, with the finance department and the auditor, avoids this scope drift.

Mistake 3: Providing a business plan not challenged internally

An optimistic business plan, never confronted with past performance, forces the valuer to rework it before building the value in use, which is billed as extra hours. Challenging the business plan internally before the engagement is the most direct cost-reduction lever.

Mistake 4: Choosing a valuer without demonstrable economic independence

A valuer commercially tied to the auditor or to the advisers of the initial acquisition exposes the test to a challenge of its probative value, regardless of the technical quality of the work. Economic independence, beyond legal independence, is now verified by the Big Four themselves.

Mistake 5: Under-documenting the sensitivity analysis to hold the budget

Compressing the sensitivity analysis to reduce fees is the riskiest saving: it is precisely this analysis that auditors and regulators have examined as a priority since 2020. A cheaper test that is insufficiently documented on this point costs more in corrective iterations than it saved at the outset.

Case 1: Swiss SME, one CGU, engagement at CHF 28,000

Case built for pedagogical purposes based on observed market practices: a Swiss industrial SME (revenue CHF 22M) recognised a CHF 6M goodwill when it acquired a competitor in 2022, allocated to a single CGU. At the 2026 closing, the auditor flags a slight underperformance of the acquisition business plan and requests an impairment test documented by an independent valuer rather than an internal review.

The business plan, already updated by the finance department before the engagement, reduces the reworking time needed. The valuer builds the value in use by DCF over five years, discounted at an adjusted WACC of 9.5%, complemented by a fair value approach using sector multiples. The engagement, scoped on a single CGU with a reliable business plan, is billed at CHF 28,000 over three weeks. The test concludes there is no impairment, with a sensitivity analysis showing the margin before an adjustment would become necessary.

Case 2: French mid-cap, four CGUs, engagement at EUR 78,000

Case built for pedagogical purposes on the French side: a services mid-cap (revenue EUR 140M) made three acquisitions between 2021 and 2023, generating goodwills allocated to four distinct CGUs. Rising rates and the slowdown of one of the acquired segments lead the finance department to mandate a complete test across the whole scope rather than a partial review.

The engagement covers four distinct adjusted WACCs, four business plans to review, two of which require a full rework, and a consolidation of results before presentation to the auditor. The fixed fee comes to EUR 78,000 over eight weeks. The test concludes there is a limited impairment on one of the four CGUs, EUR 1.4M, while the other three require no adjustment, a mixed result that would have been more costly to document without the initial scoping of the CGU perimeter.

A word from the founder

« The cost of an impairment test should be judged against the accounting risk it covers, not in absolute value. A CHF 28,000 engagement that secures a CHF 6M goodwill before the auditor costs less than 0.5% of the asset tested: it's one of the most favourable protection-to-cost ratios in the entire accounting toolkit. »

« The question I always ask a finance department: would your business plan withstand a challenge from your auditor today, without preparation? If the answer is uncertain, that's the sign you need to challenge the business plan before mandating the test, not during it. »

« A well-conducted impairment test doesn't stop at a conclusion, it documents why that conclusion would hold up against a 50 basis point rate increase or a margin revision. Everything else is just an indefensible opinion. »

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D., founder of Hectelion

FAQ: the 10 essential questions on the price of an impairment test

Introduction: what to remember before the questions

CHF 20,000 to 40,000 for a single-CGU SME, CHF 40,000 to 150,000 for a multi-CGU mid-cap, with French levels roughly 20 to 25% lower: the intervals are set. The following ten questions are those of finance departments and audit committees, with answers grounded in 2026 Franco-Swiss market observations.

Q1: Who pays for the impairment test, the company or the auditor?

The company. The test is conducted under the finance department's responsibility, either internally or via an independent valuer it mandates; the external auditor reviews it but does not bill for it, except within general audit fees that cover this review.

Q2: Is an independent valuer needed every year?

Not systematically. A well-staffed internal team can run the test alone in years without an impairment indicator or a significant business plan change. Recourse to an independent valuer becomes necessary as soon as an indicator appears, a business plan needs review, or the auditor flags methodological complexity.

Q3: How much does a multi-CGU test cost compared with a single CGU?

Cost does not multiply linearly: a second CGU adds less than a first one, since methodological scoping, the risk-free rate calculation and the report structure are shared. In practice, each additional CGU adds CHF 10,000 to 25,000 depending on its own complexity.

Q4: Does a recurring test cost less than a first test?

Yes, significantly: the market practice observed by Hectelion applies a 30 to 40% discount from the second year onward on the same CGU, the reference business plan and WACC needing only an update rather than a full rebuild.

Q5: Does the impairment test replace a business valuation?

No. The impairment test verifies the balance sheet value of an already-held asset under a precise accounting standard; a business valuation serves to set a transaction price or a share value. The methods overlap but the objective, scope and sometimes budget differ.

Q6: What exactly does the proposed fixed fee cover?

The engagement letter should list the number of CGUs tested, the methods deployed, the adjusted WACC calculation per CGU, the sensitivity analysis and the number of iterations planned with the auditor. Disbursements are added at cost. Whatever isn't written isn't owed.

Q7: Does an already-challenged business plan really reduce the bill?

Yes, markedly: a coherent, recent business plan spares the valuer from reworking it before it can be updated, which often represents several days of work on a multi-CGU mid-cap engagement.

Q8: When should the test be launched relative to closing?

Six to eight weeks before closing for a standard scope, more for a multi-CGU or multi-jurisdiction group. A late launch exposes to an urgency surcharge and to the risk of an audit qualification if the test cannot be finalised in time.

Q9: Is the cost of an impairment test tax deductible?

The accounting and tax treatment depends on the applicable framework and the nature of the engagement; as a general rule, impairment test fees are period expenses. The reflex: have the treatment validated by your accountant or fiduciary before engaging the mission.

Q10: How does the impairment test connect to a future sale?

A recent, documented impairment test provides a useful anchor point in a sale negotiation, notably to defend the value of a specific CGU. It does not replace a purchase price allocation (PPA) nor a valuation dedicated to the transaction, which mobilise different assumptions.

Estimate the value of your assets with Acontos, Hectelion's online simulator

To extend this reading with a first figure, Hectelion provides Acontos, its online tool for audit, due diligence and business valuation. Powered by Claude Sonnet 5 by Anthropic and calibrated by Hectelion's methodology, it reads the accounts, normalises EBITDA and applies real sector multiples in a few minutes. Launch the valuation simulator for free on your company: a first structured reading before scoping the impairment test's perimeter is already valuer time saved.

Conclusion: a budget calibrated on the number of CGUs and the robustness of the business plan

The cost of an impairment test is well mapped: CHF 20,000 to 40,000 for a single-CGU SME (EUR 15,000 to 30,000 in France), CHF 40,000 to 150,000 for a multi-CGU mid-cap (EUR 30,000 to 120,000). The two cases give the scale: CHF 28,000 to secure a CHF 6M goodwill on a single CGU, EUR 78,000 to document four CGUs on a mid-cap with EUR 140M in revenue.

The right budget is built in order: challenge the business plan before mandating the valuer, precisely scope the number of CGUs and any impairment indicators already identified, require a written scope including the sensitivity analysis and the number of iterations with the auditor, then compare quotes on an equal scope. On this condition, the impairment test is not a costly closing formality: it is the cheapest insurance against an accounting reworking or an audit qualification.

Article summary

An impairment test costs CHF 20,000 to 40,000 for a single-CGU SME with a simple goodwill, and CHF 40,000 to 150,000 for a mid-cap or listed company with several CGUs, French levels being roughly 20 to 25% lower. These intervals are drawn from Hectelion's market observations relative to its competitors, 2026, for timelines of two to four weeks on a simple test and six to ten weeks on a multi-CGU test.

Price varies with the number of CGUs to test, the quality of the available business plan, the availability of comparable market data and the external auditor's level of scrutiny. Fixed-fee billing per CGU is the norm; the decisive clauses are the number of iterations planned with the auditor and the depth of the sensitivity analysis, which has become the leading watch point for regulators since 2020.

The five costly mistakes follow the same pattern: mandating too late, underestimating the number of CGUs in the quote, providing a business plan not challenged internally, choosing a valuer without demonstrable economic independence, and under-documenting the sensitivity analysis to hold the budget. Well scoped, a recurring test further benefits from a 30 to 40% discount from the second year onward: the most direct cost-reduction lever for groups testing the same CGUs every year.