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 partnerWriting
Primary research we measured, guides for people running an evaluation, comparisons scored on published weights, and a blog for the shorter pieces. What none of it is: opinion posts written to a content calendar, thought leadership, or SEO filler.
Roughly monthly, only when something is actually published. No sequence and no drip.
Shorter pieces written between engagements — what we learned delivering something, or a buyer question that came up often enough to answer properly. Published irregularly, under the same editorial policy as everything else.
Primary research measured from data we had access to. Every paper states its sample size in the first paragraph and names the bias in its sample.
Practical guidance for people running an evaluation, including the parts that argue against buying anything.
Scored on published weights with no paid placement. We rank fourth on our own ERP directory.
Definitions and reference material, written to be useful during an evaluation rather than to capture search traffic.
There is a blog at /blog, and it is worth being precise about what it is, because for a long time this page said there would never be one. What we were refusing was the content calendar: output produced on a schedule regardless of whether anything was worth saying. That output is recognisable — eight hundred words restating a well-known idea, a listicle assembled from competitors’ pages, an opinion piece with no evidence behind it.
The refusal stands. What changed is only the container. We publish when we have measured something, when we can explain something we learned delivering an engagement, or when a buyer question comes up often enough to be worth answering properly — and some of those pieces are shorter than a research paper and do not belong in the research index. Those are the posts. There is no schedule, some months produce nothing, and every post is governed by the same editorial policy as the research: state the method, state the sample size, name the bias.
An industry guide telling manufacturers to buy Acumatica or NetSuite. A directory ranking us fourth. Migration guides that open by arguing you should stay where you are. A benchmarks page showing 66% on our weakest workflow and a bottom quartile well below every median.
Those are the pages worth reading first, because they are the ones we would have written differently if the goal were traffic.
Where a published figure changes, the correction appears in the changelog with the previous value stated, and the page is re-dated. Four corrections are logged there currently, including a restatement of a number we had been using in sales conversations.
Questions
The manufacturing guide, the directory where we rank fourth, and the 66% benchmark.