Global stakeholders have expressed interest in increasing the use of data analytics throughout the audit process. While data analytics offer great promise in identifying audit-relevant information, auditors may not use this information to its full potential, resulting in a missed opportunity for possible improvements to audit quality. This article summarizes a study by Koreff (2022) that examines whether conclusions from different types of data analytical models (anomaly vs. predictive) and data analyzed (financial vs. non-financial), result in different auditor decisions. Findings suggest that when predictive models are used and identify a risk of misstatement, auditors increase budgeted audit hours more when financial data is analyzed than when non-financial data is analyzed. However, when anomaly models are used and identify a risk of misstatement, auditors’ budgeted hours do not differ based on the type of data analyzed. These findings provide evidence that different data analytics do not uniformly impact auditors’ decisions.