Automating the workload
There are many repetitive tasks that financial departments must perform: gather documents, verify the numbers, research discrepancies, and compile something for review.
An AI agent can handle many of these steps. Depending on the product, it can research transactions, generate explanations, analyze expenses, or process documents so the information is easy for the professional to digest.
The difficulty in automating these processes lies in determining the right starting point. A product developed for accounts payable purposes solves a completely different issue than a solution developed for financial planning or tax advisory purposes. There are several ways you can choose the right product for your current situation.
- Choose based off your workflow
Helmstead is worth evaluating for tax advisory preparation, Numeric for close and variance analysis, and Datarails for financial planning. These products address different jobs. A CPA practice reviewing client documents needs different capabilities from a corporate accounting team reconciling accounts or an analyst preparing a forecast.
- Start with existing systems for operational tasks
Ramp and Brex address expense administration, Vic.ai targets accounts payable workflows, and HighRadius supports collections. Rillet belongs on the shortlist when replacing the accounting system is part of the plan. Compare integration requirements and approval controls before considering how much work an agent can automate.
- Build when a specific requirement remains unmet
Proprietary calculations, odd data sources, or processes that cannot be adequately supported by commercially available software make custom solutions appropriate. You can always try out commercial options first, document their limitations, and compare total operating costs. Make sure to include implementation, review, maintenance, and error correction in both the buying and building estimates.
The finance software will start adding value when it does something you can check and use. Even an impressive demonstration can disguise incomplete integration, lack of evidence, or long evaluation. Compare agents to real tasks, including exceptions, and distinguish software that will help your current process from software that demands bigger system changes.
Product | Main use case | Team to consider it | Main fit constraint |
|---|---|---|---|
Preparing tax-strategy options from client documents | CPA and advisory practices | Professional review remains necessary | |
Expense coding and spending-policy checks | Finance teams managing company spend | Evaluate within the Ramp spending workflow | |
Expense assistance, review, and approvals | Teams handling employee expenses | Adoption needs to fit the broader expense process | |
Close, reconciliation, and variance analysis | Accounting teams | Confirm which features work with your existing ERP | |
Accounting automation within an ERP | Teams considering an accounting-system replacement | Migration is a substantial part of the decision | |
Reporting, forecasting, and scenario analysis | Financial planning and analysis teams | Requires reliable underlying financial data | |
AP inbox, invoice, and vendor workflows | Accounts payable teams | Value depends on invoice complexity and integration fit | |
Receivables prioritization and collections | Teams managing substantial collections activity | Implementation may exceed the needs of a simple reminder process |
Helmstead is worth evaluating when a CPA or advisory practice wants to turn client documents into tax-strategy options for professional review.
Navigator, one of the modules from Helmstead, integrates document intake with strategy preparation with the firm’s own branding. Therefore, it can be considered as something valuable to those practices which want to have a custom client portal and a review workflow supported by AI.
A demonstration may start with sample client documents. Find out Navigator handles missing facts, conflicting information, and the evidence behind a proposed option.
Helmstead is a narrower fit for corporate finance departments seeking invoice processing, forecasting, or general-ledger automation. Navigator also does not file returns or replace professional judgment, according to its product description.
Check the modules that are currently available and the implementation and support needs. There is a waitlist on the Helmstead homepage.
Ramp is a viable option where expense coding, policy checks, and unusual transaction analysis are causing a repetitive task for the finance team.
The Ramp agents work within the information about the company spendings and policies. When the company is already using Ramp, assessing such features can be easier than adding another agent to analyze the same transactions.
Use a pilot to check how Ramp handles purchases that require context. The uploaded receipt can state the merchant and the amount but not the business purpose or the policy exception it falls under. Reviewers should have enough information to make the distinction.
Ramp will be more relevant in cases when the spending administration is the bottleneck. The team focused on preparation of the tax strategy and forecasts should look into tools dedicated to these purposes.
If Ramp adoption will bring the change in the spending process, consider including employee training, accounting integration, and policy setup in the assessment process.
Brex should be considered where delayed employee expense reports with missing information and repeated approval work are an issue.
The Brex Assistant takes care of receipts, memos, policy questions, and reimbursements. The Brex Audit Agent checks for violations while the Brex Review Agent approves items that don't pose any risks.
The thing to test is how much effort gets taken off the plates of employees and approvers. Fast reporting will do nothing for finance teams if all expenses are going to need clarifications anyway.
Set up a test with missing receipts, unknown business purpose, and valid policy exceptions. Analyze the requests that come from it, the classification, and approvals made.
Brex and Ramp have significant overlap in managing expenses. For an organization content with their system of payments, it makes sense to weigh the cost and benefits of switching.
Brex becomes a less obvious option where the issue lies somewhere else – perhaps it is month-end comments or outstanding invoices to customers. Start by looking at the thing your team needs improvement in.
Numeric should be considered if accountants are spending much time reconciling accounts and making explanations for the changes from period to period.
Numeric incorporates close management, transaction monitoring, reconciliation, and reporting. The capabilities of Artificial Intelligence in the product are variance analysis using transaction data and business information.
For instance, the accounting team can try out whether Numeric provides a good initial explanation for the rise in expenses. One can determine the transactions that support this explanation and what else remains to be investigated.
Numeric works with the existing ERP system, but some capabilities are included into its ERP alternative solution. Make sure about the scope of the product before assuming all its features can be used with your existing ERP system.
Numeric seems to be a more indirect match if the requirement for the team is tax advisory services for clients. As for the close-related scenarios, evaluate the solution by correction time, traceability, and exception handling capability.
There is good sense in looking into Rillet, when issues with the accounting system dictate exploring an ERP alternative.
With Rillet, there is support for automation of reconciliation, transaction coding, journal entry creation, variance discovery, and reporting. These are functions provided through the accounting system, hence altering the parameters of the purchase decision.
A replacement for ERP requires more than just assessing the agent. The team needs to think about history, accounting procedures, integration, reporting, and the move from one system to another.
When the business is already in the process of doing so, Rillet is a solution through which it can assess accounting automation in the new system. Ask to be shown how the product performs in your particular situation.
Rillet is less proportional where it is just one function which has become an issue. Where the accounting system is performing satisfactorily, it might pay to think about an add-in or integration.
Datarails will be suitable for financial planning and analysis team members who require assistance in communicating, reporting and exploring forecast scenarios.
Datarails offers independent agents for reporting, planning and strategy. The role of these agents is to work with validated financial data and create analysis for decision-making.
A relevant approach would include a start with a model that is already familiar to your analysts. Then change an assumption in the model and review its output to determine whether the explanation correctly highlights the drivers.
The accuracy of forecasting depends on the availability of assumptions and data. If different departments have differing definitions of data or unreconciled financial accounts, you need to sort out these matters during the implementation.
Datarails is not such a great solution when dealing with invoices and approvals. In case of planning teams, the main question here would be about analysts spending less time on preparing and reviewing the outputs while having control over assumptions.
Vic.ai’s VicAgents are worth assessing when AP staff repeatedly handle invoice inquiries, sort inbox messages, or check vendor terms against transactions.
VicAgents are designed for those tasks within Vic.ai’s finance workflows. The product also describes capabilities for identifying exceptions and analyzing invoice-processing performance.
Evaluate the work surrounding an invoice as well as the invoice itself. A vendor question may involve an approval delay, a disputed charge, or missing documentation. The useful outcome is a correct response or escalation with the relevant context attached.
Ask for a demonstration using duplicate invoices, incomplete records, and requests to change vendor account details. Confirm what Vic.ai can do automatically and what requires review in your configuration.
Vic.ai may be more implementation than a business needs for a small, straightforward AP workload. Compare the recurring administrative burden with the integration and operating costs before committing.
HighRadius belongs on the shortlist when tasks like checking invoice status, prioritizing accounts, and preparing collections communications takes up substantial staff time.
HighRadius provides agents for performing collections-related tasks, such as portal management and customer communications. These functions become relevant when collectors need to gather information from multiple sources before making their decision.
Test scenarios should cover disputed invoices, due dates of payment promises, partial payments, and customers having multiple open items. Test whether HighRadius decides on the appropriate next step and does not make extra contacts.
The task of an overdue reminder could be performed in a much simpler workflow. HighRadius gets more relevant as the number of accounts, exceptions, and integrated systems grows.
In the purchasing process, ERP integration and change of the collection process must be taken into consideration. Inquire about how the account context arrives at the agent and how staff can control it.
When buying an existing tool makes sense
Purchase a pre-existing finance solution when it matches your process, integrates with your system, and provides satisfactory results without excessive review.
Begin with a concrete task, like producing variance analysis commentary for the month or analyzing AP inquiries. Determine how long it currently takes you to accomplish this task under what conditions a solution will be deemed satisfactory.
Run past cases through the suggested solution, including cases with incomplete input and exceptions, because it is these cases that define the remaining effort required.
Weigh the cost of subscribing to and using the solution against implementation costs, training costs, integration costs, and review costs. An apparently cheap feature can be costly if employees have to keep fixing it.
A pre-existing software solution is highly desirable when your needs are typical, and the vendor addresses them explicitly. Document shortcomings encountered during testing. A documented shortfall provides a more concrete reason to develop customized functionality than a vague desire for flexibility.
When building your own makes sense
Create a custom finance agent whenever a recurring but critical need still exists after evaluating appropriate products.
This gap may relate to a unique allocation algorithm, operational data not accessible through standard integration tools, or a complex approval process that involves multiple enterprise systems.
In one case, a company may require a weekly margin report that includes accounting data with service delivery data and company-specific cost allocations. Such a custom agent could collect the needed inputs and provide commentary on calculations made by proven code.
Custom development needs an operating owner. An individual has to keep up links, troubleshoot problems, control permissions, and repeat testing when changes occur in the involved systems and models.
The acceptance criteria should be defined before custom development starts. These criteria should include sources of data, desired output, allowable operations, review procedures, and failure response.
When a group cannot pinpoint clearly where commercial solutions fail, it might be better to conduct additional evaluations rather than start development.
Consider a hybrid approach
A hybrid approach makes sense when existing software handles the core finance process but leaves a specific handoff or reporting requirement unresolved.
For example, an accounting platform could remain responsible for the ledger while a custom assistant assembles approved figures and drafts an internal management update.
Keeping the scope narrow makes the custom component easier to evaluate. It also avoids rebuilding functions that the finance team already relies on.
Begin with reading information and preparing drafts. Expand responsibilities only after the team has evidence that the workflow handles expected cases and exceptions adequately.
Keep calculations in tested formulas or code where appropriate, and preserve links to source records. Reviewers need a way to verify the output without reconstructing the entire task.
Choose the hybrid approach when the integration closes a measurable gap and someone can maintain it over time.