Discover how selecting the right financial software can enhance your business's ROI. Learn key factors to consider in your decision-making process.
Does choosing a financial management system really have to be this complicated?
You would think it would be straightforward. You put together a shortlist, sit through a few demos, and pick the one that fits. But most finance leaders find that the further into an evaluation they get, the harder the decision feels. Platforms start to look similar on paper. Demos are polished. And the real questions are hard to get answered in a 45-minute call: will this reduce the workload your team carries at month-end, or will you just be doing the same work in a different system?
If you are in that position, this article is for you. It covers what actually matters when you are evaluating a financial management system at the mid-market level, where the most common platforms tend to fall short, and what a well-matched system looks like in practice.
TL;DR
Generic feature checklists do not tell you much. Start with where your current system is creating friction.
Xero and QuickBooks work well up to a point. That point is often when multi-entity complexity enters the picture.
NetSuite is capable, but it is often more than mid-market finance teams need, and the implementation overhead reflects that.
The four things that matter most: multi-entity management, reporting flexibility, automation depth, and integration quality.
Sage Intacct is purpose-built for mid-market finance and can reduce manual workload while improving visibility across the organisation.
Why Generic Checklists Don’t Help When Choosing a Financial Management System
Most guides to choosing a financial management system hand you a list of features: automation, cloud access, integrations, security, scalability. The problem is that every modern platform can tick most of those boxes in a demo. The list does not tell you how those features perform under the conditions your finance team actually works in.
What matters in an evaluation is the gap between what your current system can do and what your organisation now needs. That gap tends to grow gradually. A process that needed a bit of manual effort two years ago now takes significantly more. A reporting pack that took a day now takes three. An intercompany reconciliation that was manageable at two entities becomes unwieldy at five. That kind of drift is easy to miss because each step feels small.
The most useful starting point is not a feature checklist. It is an honest assessment of where your current system is creating friction, and whether that friction is structural (a genuine limitation of the platform) or something that better configuration could fix. The two call for very different responses.
Here are some of the reasons why the right financial software is crucial for any business:
- Maximising Return on Investment (ROI)
Every financial decision in business inherently carries the goal of maximising returns. When it comes to software selection, the concept of ROI takes on a multidimensional aspect. Not only does it pertain to the direct financial return, but also to the intangible benefits such as time saved, mistakes avoided, and processes optimised.
For businesses to truly harness the potential of their software solution, they must seek systems that promise and deliver on both these fronts. The right software can become a powerful asset, bolstering the company’s financial health and operational agility.
- Aligning with business goals
Financial software is no longer an isolated tool; it integrates deeply into a business's strategy and operations. The objectives set for the business — be it expansion, diversification, or consolidation — should be mirrored in the features and scalability of the chosen software.
For instance, a company eyeing international growth might require multi-currency capabilities. Such strategic alignment ensures that the software acts as an enabler, propelling the business towards its defined milestones rather than being a mere recording tool.
- Efficiency and automation
Modern business demands speed and precision within finance. Manual processes are not just time-consuming; they also carry a higher risk of errors. Modern financial software solutions address these challenges head-on by automating repetitive tasks and ensuring data accuracy.
The advantage here is twofold. Firstly, it allows financial teams to allocate their time to more strategic tasks, deepening their contribution to the business. Secondly, office automation builds a foundation of accuracy and consistency, enhancing trust in financial reporting and analytics.
Where Xero and QuickBooks Start to Show Their Limits
Both platforms have earned their place in the market. For smaller organisations with straightforward structures, they work well. The challenge is that they were designed for that environment, and their architecture reflects it. But the cracks start to show when your organisation inches towards the realm of mid-market.
Single-entity design
Xero and QuickBooks are built around a single legal entity. Each company sits in its own file, with its own chart of accounts, its own reporting, and its own user access. That works when complexity stays contained. When your organisation grows to two or more entities (through acquisition, geographic expansion, or a group structure), you end up running parallel systems that do not communicate with each other.
Consolidation becomes a manual exercise. Your team pulls data from each entity, maps it into a spreadsheet, adjusts for intercompany transactions, and assembles the group view from scratch. That process takes time and introduces risk at every step. And it repeats at every period end.
Reporting that depends on exports
Neither platform offers dimensional reporting at the level mid-market finance teams typically need. If you want to analyse performance by department, project, location, or cost centre across entities, you are likely building those views manually in Excel. That reliance creates a gap between when the data exists and when decision-makers can use it. That gap matters more than it might seem.
Automation that stops at the edges
Both platforms handle the basics: bank feeds, recurring invoices, and simple approval workflows. But the automation does not extend into the more complex parts of the finance workflow. Intercompany eliminations, automated allocation rules, and approval chains that reflect your actual structure either are not available or require third-party add-ons that bring their own cost and integration risk.
What to Actually Assess When Evaluating a Financial Management System
Once you are past the demos and into a genuine evaluation, four capability areas tend to separate platforms most clearly at the mid-market level:
If your organisation operates across more than one legal entity (or is likely to in the next few years), this is the most important thing to assess. The question is not whether a platform supports multiple entities. Most claim to. The question is whether it handles consolidation, intercompany transactions, and group-level reporting natively, without manual work or add-ons.
If your team is currently spending days at period end pulling entity data into a spreadsheet to build a group view, that is a structural problem, and it will not get easier as you grow. A platform that consolidates automatically and in real time removes most of that manual work.
Finance teams are being asked for more than the standard P&L and balance sheet. Department heads want performance data by team. The board wants visibility across entities. Operational leaders want project-level profitability.
If your answer to most of those requests currently involves an Excel export and an hour of reformatting, that is the gap to close. Assess how easily a platform produces those views natively, without custom development or manual extraction. It is a practical indicator of how much value it will deliver day to day.
Basic automation is table stakes now. What differentiates platforms is how far the automation extends into the more complex parts of the workflow: multi-step approvals, allocation rules, intercompany eliminations, and revenue recognition.
It is worth asking vendors specifically about the scenarios your team handles manually right now, because those are exactly the areas where automation either earns its cost or quietly disappoints. The more your system handles natively, the less your team needs to compensate with manual effort.
Financial software does not operate in isolation. You likely have a CRM, an HRIS, a project management tool, or operational systems that generate data your finance function needs.
A common frustration at this stage of an evaluation is discovering that “integration” means a monthly CSV export rather than a live connection. Assess the quality and reliability of integrations, not just their existence. A clean, well-supported connection to your CRM is worth more than a long list of theoretical options.
Where NetSuite Could Fit... and Where It Definitely Doesn’t
Once you have worked through those four criteria, you will have a clearer picture of what you actually need. That is the right moment to think about where the main platforms sit in relation to it, including NetSuite, which often comes up at the mid-market level.
NetSuite is a capable platform. It is built for complexity, covers a broad range of business functions beyond finance, and has a strong track record in larger organisations. For the right business, it could be a solid choice.
For many mid-market finance leaders, though, NetSuite is a significant undertaking. Implementations can be complex and timelines can be long. The system requires careful ongoing management. Its breadth (spanning finance, CRM, inventory, and operations) means configuring it for your specific needs often requires specialist resource, either in-house or through a partner. That adds to both cost and lead time.
If your organisation genuinely needs that level of breadth, the investment can be justified. But if your core requirement is a finance-specific platform with decent multi-entity management, flexible reporting, and some meaningful automation, NetSuite is often more than the situation calls for. However, the total cost of ownership, including implementation, licensing, and ongoing management, is typically higher than comparable alternatives to NetSuite.
Why Sage Intacct Stands Out for Mid-Market Organisations
Sage Intacct is purpose-built for mid-market finance. The platform was designed for organisations that have outgrown entry-level software but do not need the scale and complexity of a full ERP. That focus shows in how it works day to day.
- Native multi-entity consolidation
Sage Intacct manages multiple entities within a single system. Consolidation happens automatically and in real time, with intercompany transactions eliminated without manual adjustment. Your team gets a consolidated view whenever they need it, not at the end of a multi-day process. That removes one of the most time-consuming parts of period-end for organisations with group structures.
- Dimensional reporting built in
Rather than relying on a rigid chart of accounts, Sage Intacct uses dimensions: tags applied to transactions across entities, departments, projects, locations, and more. That means you can slice and analyse financial data in almost any configuration without building a separate report for each view. Your team can answer ad hoc questions from the board quickly, without running another export first.
- Automation across the finance workflow
Sage Intacct automates across accounts payable, accounts receivable, expense management, and revenue recognition, including complex scenarios like multi-element arrangements and subscription-based revenue. Approval workflows can be configured to reflect your actual organisational structure. That reduces the manual workload your team carries and creates a more consistent, auditable process.
In a commissioned Total Economic Impact study conducted by Forrester Consulting, organisations using Sage Intacct reported a 250% return on investment over three years. The study also reported that finance teams closed the books up to 79% faster.
Those figures reflect the cumulative effect of reducing manual processes across the finance function. It is not one feature in isolation. It is what tends to happen when friction is removed from dozens of tasks your team handles every week.
What the Right Choice Looks Like
The right financial software fits where your organisation is now and where it is heading. It should not require you to build workarounds from day one, or pay for capability you will not use for years.
For most mid-market finance leaders, that means a platform that handles multi-entity complexity natively, gives you real-time visibility without manual extraction, and reduces the workload your team carries at period end. Sage Intacct consistently meets those criteria in a way that entry-level platforms often cannot sustain as you grow.
Growth changes what your finance function needs from its systems. Most finance leaders who have made this shift say the same thing afterwards: they wished they had done it sooner. Not because their old system was failing, but because they had not realised how much energy their team was spending compensating for it.
Your Next Step
If your month-end still depends on spreadsheets and manual consolidation, you already have a clear signal that the current setup is creating avoidable work for your team.
You do not need to overhaul everything at once. Start by defining where the friction is most expensive, and what “good” would look like in six to 12 months: faster consolidation, clearer reporting, and fewer workarounds.
If you would like to see how Sage Intacct could work for your organisation, book your free Discovery Call here:
Book a free Sage Intacct discovery call