We take no money
No listing fee, no placement fee, no sponsorship, no affiliate arrangement. There is no paid path onto this directory and there will not be one without it being disclosed here first.
Watch it run
Seven seconds from inbox to a balanced journal entry, with the policy check and the approval gate shown in full.
Watch the agentThe difference
A parallel ledger that reconciles to your existing system every morning — to the penny, per account, per period.
See the tie-outCase study
Consolidated reporting in eleven days, without leaving the accounting system they already ran.
Read the storyMost requested
Most ERP projects miss their business case. We take over stalled deployments and get them closing books again.
Get a free assessmentEditorial policy
No paid placement, published criteria, disclosed ownership on every page. The directory is worth more than any deal it could win.
Read the methodologyNew research
We surveyed finance leaders on what actually went wrong. The answers are not what vendors tell you.
Read the studyPartner program
Accounting firms, fractional CFOs, and ERP consultants deliver implementations on our platform.
Become a partnerDirectory · for vendors
If you build finance software for the mid-market and think it belongs in this directory, tell us. There is no fee, no sponsorship option, and no way to influence the assessment — which is the only arrangement that makes the directory worth reading.
What it does, who it serves, and roughly how many mid-market customers use it. We review submissions quarterly.
What to expect
These are the terms rather than guidelines, and several of them are the reason some vendors would rather not be listed. That is a legitimate position and we would not list a product whose vendor actively objected.
No listing fee, no placement fee, no sponsorship, no affiliate arrangement. There is no paid path onto this directory and there will not be one without it being disclosed here first.
You do not get to see or approve the entry before it appears. We will correct factual errors after publication and we will not soften an assessment because a vendor disagrees with it.
Six criteria, fixed weights, published before scoring. Applied identically to your product, to the incumbents, and to ours — which is why we do not rank first.
Support and ecosystem carries 10% of the score and cannot be assessed on a thin customer base. Below roughly 500 mid-market customers we generally decline rather than guess.
From documentation, trials, customer conversations, and engagements where we have encountered the product. A briefing is welcome and does not substitute for that.
We review submissions quarterly and add products when we have enough basis to score them honestly. Some submissions sit for two quarters before we can say anything useful.
Scoring
Fixed before any product in a category is scored, applied identically to every entry, and unchanged by anything a vendor tells us during a submission.
A directory that takes money from the products it ranks is an advertising placement with a numbered list attached, and readers work that out quickly. The only version worth publishing is one where the ranking cannot be bought, and that requires turning down revenue that would otherwise be straightforward to collect.
We are also a competitor in this category, which is a conflict a payment ban does not resolve. What it does is remove the one conflict we can remove, and it is why we score ourselves fourth on our own ERP directory and seventh on our own inventory directory rather than first on either.
What the product does, in plain terms rather than category language. Who it is built for by revenue band, industry, and business shape. Roughly how many mid-market customers use it. Public pricing if it exists, or an honest description of how it is quoted if not. And what it is genuinely not good at, which is the part that most improves your entry.
That last item is not a trap. A vendor who names their own limitations gives us the basis for an accurate entry, and an accurate entry sends you better-fitting prospects than a flattering one does.
Products serving the enterprise market, because including them distorts the scoring for the mid-market products the directory exists to compare. Products with a thin customer base, because we cannot assess ecosystem and support credibly. And products in categories we have no working knowledge of, where a score would be a guess with a decimal point.
If an entry is factually wrong, tell us and we will fix it and note that we did. Dated corrections are what make a directory citable, and silent edits are what make one worthless as a reference.
If an entry is unfavourable but accurate, we will not change it. We will publish a vendor response alongside it if you send one, and several entries carry assessments the vendors would not have chosen — including our own.
Tell us and we will remove the entry. We would rather have a smaller directory than list a product whose vendor objects to being assessed. Nobody has asked yet, which we take as a modest signal that the entries are fair.
Questions
Tell us what the product does and who it serves. We review submissions quarterly.