Professional judgment is always an important factor in detecting pervasive material misstatements, and detecting pervasive material misstatements also affects the auditors' opinions. However, auditors in practice have different understandings of the concept of pervasive, which causes different opinions to be given to audit reports even in similar circumstances. Users may also have different understandings in this regard, so the present study examines the gap in expectations between auditors and users of audit reports in the area of ​​pervasive material misstatements. This study is a survey type and the statistical sample was determined using the Cochran formula with an unknown population, 384 people, and finally 168 questionnaires were collected from auditors and 187 from users. The data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests, ANOVA, Tukey, and Friedman. The results of the study show that there was no significant difference between the opinions of the two groups regarding the effect of financial statement adjustments on pervasive material misstatements, disclosure of pervasive material misstatements, and the pervasiveness of misstatements, and both groups agree with the disclosure of pervasive material misstatements in the audit report and the determination of quantitative criteria and coefficients for detecting pervasive material misstatements in the materiality level guidelines and standards approved by the audit organization. Since no specific study has been conducted so far in the area of ​​differences in expectations between auditors and users of reports in the area of ​​pervasive material misstatements, this can be considered an indication of the novelty of the subject and the applicability of its results