Which type of audit evidence is typically used to prepare comparative analyses?

Analytical evidence is crucial for preparing comparative analyses as it involves evaluating financial information through ratios, trends, and variations across periods or entities. This type of evidence allows auditors to identify significant fluctuations and anomalies in financial data, which aids in understanding the relationships between different data points over time. By utilizing analytical procedures, auditors can gain insights into patterns and not just historical figures, making it an essential tool for comparative analysis.

In contrast, testimonial evidence relies on statements from individuals, which may not provide the quantitative aspects necessary for comparisons. Documentary evidence consists of physical records or documents that substantiate transactions, but these alone do not facilitate the broader analysis of trends or relationships between figures needed for comparative purposes. Corroborative evidence supports other pieces of evidence but is not primarily used for the analytical comparison of data over time. Hence, analytical evidence is the most appropriate choice for preparing comparative analyses, as it directly supports the auditor's ability to interpret and compare financial performance or condition over different periods or compared to industry benchmarks.