Finance Process Automation Services
We build finance automations that post to your general ledger under the controls your auditors already test. Integration runs through APIs where your systems expose them, and RPA only where they do not. Accounts payable, subledger-to-ledger data flows, payment and bank reconciliation, collections, month-end close and master data.
Controls first
Segregation of duties, audit trail and change control mapped before anything is built
API-first integration
Supported interfaces over screen automation, every time one exists
Nothing fails silently
Every exception lands in a queue with an owner, an age and a reason
Parallel run before cutover
At least one full close run side by side, with every difference explained
What Our Finance Process Automation Services Deliver
Six things that change once finance data moves by software. Plain terms, no theory.
Exceptions found on the day
A failed post, a payout that will not tie, a duplicate invoice. Found when it happens, by the system, not in the last 48 hours of the close by a person reading a variance report.
A tie-out that holds without a bridge
Subledger and ledger agree because the posting is transactional and restartable, not because somebody rebuilds the difference in a spreadsheet every month.
An audit trail that answers first time
Every entry an integration creates carries a reference back to the transaction that caused it. The walkthrough becomes a query instead of an archaeology project.
Judgement stays with your team
Approval thresholds, write-off decisions and anything needing context stay with people. Data movement, matching and status chasing do not.
A close that is shorter because nobody is chasing
Most close delay is not calculation. It is finding out whether the thing you are waiting on has happened yet.
Controls that survive the automation
If a person could not both create a vendor and approve a payment to it, neither can the service account. Mapped before build, not after a finding.
Six Finance Processes We Automate
Each can be taken on its own. Most engagements start with one, prove the control model works, then extend.
Accounts payable and invoice processing
Capture and extraction, GL coding, three-way match against purchase order and goods receipt, approval routing by threshold and cost centre, posting, and payment file preparation for release by a person. The exception path is designed first. Ardent Partners measured a market invoice exception rate of 18.4% in 2025 against 11.1% for top performers, so an automation that only handles clean invoices relocates the work rather than removing it.
Subledger to general ledger data flows
Scheduled and event-driven posting from billing, payroll, expense and operational systems into the ledger, with account and dimension mapping, period control, and a tie-out report produced by the same run that did the posting. Posting is idempotent, because a retry that doubles an accrual is worse than a run that failed cleanly.
Sage Intacct integration →Payment processor and bank reconciliation
Three-way matching between source transactions, processor payouts and bank statement lines. Fees, refunds, chargebacks, currency conversion and settlement timing resolved by rule, with everything else routed to an exception queue. A payout is never the sum of the day's transactions, and the design starts from that.
Reconciliation detail →Accounts receivable follow-up
Ageing-driven reminder sequences, promise-to-pay tracking, dispute flagging and escalation, plus cash application matching receipts against open invoices. Cash application runs and clears before any reminder fires, so the automation never chases a customer who has already paid.
Month-end close and reporting
Close checklist orchestration with real dependencies and visible status, recurring and accrual journals generated from source data, intercompany eliminations, and variance packs assembled and distributed. We automate the movement and the visibility. The tasks that exist because somebody should look stay with a person.
Master data maintenance
Vendor, customer, chart of accounts and dimension changes, with validation against format and duplicate rules and approval before the record is written. Vendor bank detail changes get dual approval and out-of-band confirmation, or we do not automate them. There is no version of that we will build differently.
How a Finance Automation Engagement Runs
Five stages. The first two produce something useful whether or not you proceed.
Process walkthrough and control mapping
We sit with the people who do the work, not only the people who own it. The process as performed, the controls it carries, the segregation-of-duties constraints, and the real volume and exception profile.
Interface assessment
For every system in scope: what it actually exposes, which API and which version, how it authenticates, how it throttles, whether a sandbox exists. The API-or-RPA call made and justified for each step.
Build against a sandbox
Development on a non-production instance with representative data, including the exceptions. The exception queue and the run reconciliation are built in the same sprint as the main flow, not afterwards.
Parallel run
The automation runs alongside the manual process for at least one full close. Both outputs compared line by line, every difference explained before anything is switched off.
Cutover, handover and support
Cutover with the manual process still available. Handover includes the runbook, the service account permission specification, the change process and the escalation path.
Three Ways to Work With Us
Pick the one that fits how the work arrives.
Assessment
Fixed scope and fixed fee. Process and control map, interface assessment, and a sequenced recommendation with the API-or-RPA decision made for each step. Delivered as a document you own.
Best when you need budget approved, with us or otherwise.
Build
Scoped delivery of one process or a sequence of them, through the five stages above. Priced per process once the assessment has established the interface surface.
Best when you know what needs building.
Embedded specialists
Integration and automation engineers working inside your team and under your direction, for programmes where you hold the architecture and need delivery capacity.
Best when the work is continuous rather than a project.
Controls Are the Design Input, Not the Clean-Up
A finance automation that breaks a control is worse than no automation, because it is faster and harder to see.
Automated journal entries are in scope for fraud testing.
The PCAOB's 2025 staff guidance on journal entries states that management-override risk applies to entries processed through automated systems, not only manual ones, and that the population examined must be tested for completeness. An integration that posts to your ledger becomes part of that population. We build it so it can be proven complete.
What Your Auditor Asks For, and Where It Comes From
Each row is produced by the automation itself rather than assembled during fieldwork.
Worth knowing in the other direction, because it rarely gets said: PCAOB AS 2201 treats automated controls as generally lower risk where IT general controls are effective, and permits a benchmarking approach in later years. A well-controlled automation can reduce annual testing effort rather than add to it. Our full build standards are written for your IT and security reviewer.
APIs Where a System Has Them, RPA Where It Does Not
A stated position, not a preference applied when convenient. The two approaches fail differently, and that difference matters to finance.
RPA is not the lesser option. It is the correct option where no interface exists, and we build and support it. It is the wrong option where an interface does exist, which is the case far more often than most finance teams have been told. Related: enterprise integration, robotic process automation and Power Automate consulting.
Systems We Integrate, and What the Interface Actually Is
This detail decides what a project costs and how it behaves in year three. Two platforms with the same name on a slide can be a four-week job and a four-month one.
Sage Intacct
REST API, generally available since the 2025 R1 release and where Sage now ships new objects. XML Web Services remains supported for legacy objects
NetSuite
SuiteTalk REST with OAuth 2.0 and SuiteQL for query. Oracle's published SOAP retirement ends at 2028.2, so new build goes to REST
Dynamics 365 Business Central
API v2.0 over Microsoft Entra OAuth, with custom API pages where a standard API does not carry the field
QuickBooks Online
Accounting API v3 over OAuth 2.0
QuickBooks Desktop
A different integration entirely. qbXML through the Web Connector, installed alongside the company file
Stripe
Balance transactions as the reconciliation unit, and the payout reconciliation report carrying the bank trace ID and your own metadata columns
Power Automate
Microsoft publishes premium connectors for Stripe and Business Central. Sage Intacct and QuickBooks Online are custom connector or middleware work
UiPath
IXP for document classification and extraction, with pre-trained models for invoices, purchase orders and remittance advice
If your system is not listed, that is not a problem. The assessment establishes what every system in scope exposes, whether API, file, database or screen only, and that determines the approach. We also work across ERP platforms and with Dynamics 365 Business Central in depth.
Why Choose Xylity for Finance Process Automation Services
Four things that are true of us and not of most automation partners.
We design for the auditor, not around them
The control map comes before the build, and the control evidence is produced by the automation rather than assembled during fieldwork. Most partners treat this as a document written after go-live.
No platform margin to protect
We do not resell finance platform licensing and hold no certification that needs defending. When we tell you an interface will not support what you want, there is nothing behind the advice.
The assessment is yours either way
The process and control map and the interface assessment are deliverables you own, usable in a proposal to anyone. We would rather lose a build we could not price honestly.
We staff the firms that deliver this work
Enterprises engage us directly, and so do the advisory and IT services firms delivering finance automation for their own clients. Both see how we work.
Detail on the Parts That Usually Decide the Project
Three pages, each written for a different reader.
Sage Intacct integration services
Connecting billing, payment and operational systems to Intacct. Posting rules and grain, duplicate prevention, error routing, and what the audit trail does and does not give you.
Read the detail →Payment and bank reconciliation automation
Why processor payouts never match individual transactions, the three-way match, how matching rules are layered, and how the exception queue becomes audit evidence.
Read the detail →How we build finance automations
For the IT and security reviewer. Credential handling, audit trail, error and alert policy by failure class, change control inside ITGC scope, and the API versus RPA decision.
Read the standards →Two Ways Finance Automation Work Reaches Us
You own the close and the controls
You are a CFO, controller, head of finance operations or treasury lead. The close is taking longer than it should, reconciliation is holding up sign-off, or a system your team depends on only exists as a person typing into two screens. You need a partner who can speak to your auditor as readily as to your developer.
We start with the assessment. You get the process and control map and the interface assessment before any build decision, and those documents are yours whatever you decide next.
Start with an assessment →You designed the finance stack and need it built
You are a CFO advisory practice, an accounting firm, or an IT services company whose client needs finance automation work your bench cannot cover this quarter. You keep the client relationship and the design authority. We supply the delivery capacity, under your direction and your name where you want it that way.
Our CFO advisory partner page sets out how that works, what you keep control of, and what happens after go-live.
Scale Your Business Applications Team →Finance Process Automation Services: Common Questions
What finance leaders and their IT reviewers ask before a first conversation.
Finance process automation services cover the design, build and support of automations that move and reconcile financial data between systems and post it to the general ledger. In practice that means accounts payable and invoice processing, subledger-to-ledger data flows, payment and bank reconciliation, collections follow-up, month-end close orchestration and master data maintenance. The work is part integration engineering and part controls design: the automation has to produce the right number and also produce the evidence that it did.
It will if the automation is designed without them, which is why the control map comes before the build. The constraints a person operates under carry across to the service account: if a person could not both create a vendor and approve a payment to it, neither can the automation. Done properly the opposite happens. PCAOB AS 2201 treats automated controls as generally lower risk where IT general controls are effective, and permits a benchmarking approach in later years, so annual testing effort can fall rather than rise.
APIs where a system has them, RPA where it does not. An API integration is transactional, restartable, logged and unaffected by interface changes. A screen automation breaks quietly when a vendor moves a button. We use RPA where there is genuinely no interface, which usually means bank and government portals, and build it with monitoring and an exception queue because it will need attention eventually. The interface assessment establishes which applies to each step, and that assessment is a deliverable you keep.
It depends almost entirely on the interface surface, which is why we assess that before quoting. A single process against a platform with a current REST API and a usable sandbox is a short project. The same process against a desktop system with no API, or a platform where the object you need is not exposed, is a different piece of work. The assessment gives you a sequenced plan with effort attached per process, so you can stage it against your own close calendar rather than committing to everything at once.
We work with the system you have. Replacing a finance platform to enable automation is almost always the more expensive route and it moves the risk into a migration. Our work sits around Sage Intacct, NetSuite, Dynamics 365 Business Central, QuickBooks Online and Desktop, and the operational systems that feed them. Where a platform genuinely cannot support what you need, we will say so during the assessment rather than build something fragile around it.
Judgement, approval and exception handling. Approval thresholds stay with people. Write-off and dispute decisions stay with people. Master data changes, particularly vendor bank details, always route to a person with dual approval. What goes away is keying, chasing status, rebuilding a tie-out in a spreadsheet, and finding out about a failed post three weeks later. The exception queue becomes the place the team works, so it is built to be worked in.
Yes, and the terms are agreed in writing at handover rather than assumed. Handover includes a runbook, the permission specification for the service account, the change process and an escalation path. We are not publishing response-time commitments here because they depend on the scope and the systems involved. Ask for them as part of the engagement and they will be specific rather than generic.
Start With the Assessment, Not the Build
A process and control map plus an interface assessment for every system in scope, delivered as a document you own. It tells you what can be automated through a supported interface, what needs RPA, what should stay manual, and in what order, whether or not you build it with us.