Pricing
Log inGet Started

By role

Client accounting services that scale past your headcount

CAS is the growth line in most firms and it scales with staff, which is the problem — the work is largely transactional, the margin depends on how much of it a person touches, and hiring is the constraint. Automating the transactional layer is the only structural answer, and it does not require moving clients onto one platform.

Get a free assessmentBook a demo
day 1day 2day 3day 4day 5day 6Bank feeds reconciledReconciliation agentAP cut-off & accrualsAP agentAR ageing & allowanceAR agentPayroll journal postedIntegrationPrepaid & accrual schedulesController agentFixed asset depreciationController agentRevenue recognition runRevenue agentIntercompany eliminationController agentSubledger tie-outClose agentFlux review & commentaryCFO agentSign-offM. Reyes — humansolid = complete · faded = running · grey = waiting · one human sign-off at the end
No client platform mandateReview visibility across clientsReferral economics available
The situationWhat we doQuestions

The situation

Six things that cap a CAS practice.

Margin depends on touch time

Every bill a staff member keys is margin. The practice scales linearly with headcount and the pricing rarely keeps up with wage inflation.

Hiring is the binding constraint

You could take more clients if you could staff them. Experienced people are scarce and juniors need supervision that consumes your seniors.

Every client is different

Different systems, different charts, different conventions. Method does not transfer, so training is per-client rather than per-firm.

Review is where seniors disappear

Partner and manager review is the quality control and it is the most expensive hour in the firm being spent checking arithmetic.

Close status is invisible

Across forty clients you find out something is late when the client asks, which is the worst possible discovery mechanism.

Documentation is inconsistent

What was done, by whom, on what basis — varying by staff member, which matters when a client is examined or when the person leaves.

The transactional layer is what caps the practice

In most CAS practices the work splits roughly into transaction processing, close execution, and advisory. The first is the majority of the hours and the least of the value, and it is the only part that scales linearly with headcount.

Automating it does not remove your staff — it moves them up. The firms that have done this report the same headcount serving materially more clients, with juniors doing exception handling and review rather than keying, and seniors spending their time on the advisory work that clients actually pay a premium for.

Transaction processing is most of the hours and least of the value. It is also the only part of a CAS practice that scales strictly with headcount.

No platform mandate for clients

The obvious version of this is standardising every client onto one accounting system, and firms that try usually find it stalls — clients resist, migrations consume the practice, and the ones who agree are not the ones causing the problem.

The layer runs on top of QuickBooks, Xero, Sage Intacct, NetSuite, and the rest. Your clients keep what they have; your method standardises anyway. That is the arrangement that actually rolls out across a book.

Review changes shape

The Controller Agent reviews every journal entry against pattern rather than sampling, and surfaces what is unusual with the comparison attached. That does not replace partner review — it changes what the partner is reviewing, from arithmetic to judgement.

Firms tell us this is the change that most affects capacity, because senior review time is the scarcest resource in the practice and it was being spent on the part a machine checks more thoroughly.

Independence, where it applies

Where your firm also audits a client, the usual independence considerations apply to anything that looks like performing management functions. The permission model helps — agents draft and your staff commit, with the client approving — but this is a conversation for your risk partner rather than something we would advise on. We flag it rather than leaving you to discover it.

Questions

What people ask.

Do our clients have to change systems?
No. The layer runs on top of QuickBooks, Xero, Sage Intacct, NetSuite, and others. Firms that try to standardise clients onto one platform generally stall, so we designed around not needing that.
Who holds the subscription, us or the client?
Either. Firms commonly hold it for smaller clients and price it into the CAS fee; larger clients usually hold their own. Partner pricing applies across a book.
Will this reduce our staffing?
In the firms we have worked with, no — the same headcount serves more clients, with juniors on exceptions rather than keying. Whether you convert that into growth or into margin is your decision.
What about independence if we also audit?
Standard considerations apply to anything resembling management functions. Agents draft and your staff commit with client approval, which helps, but take it to your risk partner rather than our word.
Is there a referral arrangement?
Yes, recurring commission, documented on the partner page. Many firms run it that way alongside holding subscriptions for their CAS clients.

Serve more clients with the staff you have.

Tell us how many clients and where the hours go, and we will scope what automating the transactional layer takes.

Get a free assessmentBook a demo