Accounting
Exact Online
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Exact B.V. · www.exact.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Exact Online, from Exact B.V., positions finance software as the core of an ERP suite for small and medium-sized businesses — and the bench judged it on thin published evidence. Strongest is sovereignty, the highest-scoring criterion at 2 to 5 — the genuine split of this verdict: high scorers read the Dutch contracting entity and Delft address as the books staying with a Dutch provider under EU law, while low scorers found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or an export satisfying statutory retention after the contract ends. Weakest are GoBD compliance and documents and banking, both 0 to 1: we found no public information on posting immutability, retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation, and none on bank feeds, receipt capture or matching beyond an unspecified 'powerful AI features' line. Adviser handoff sits flat at 2 — accountants are a named target with Tax and Annual Reporting editions, yet no DATEV export or adviser login is in evidence — and core bookkeeping at 1 to 3 and tax and filings at 1 to 2 rest on positioning alone. The captured pages show no prices.
Speaks for it
- Contracting entity is Exact B.V., with a recorded address at Molengraaffsingel 33, 2629 JD Delft, The Netherlands
- Accountants are a named target segment, with Practice Management capabilities and Tax and Annual Reporting editions for firms
- Finance software is positioned as the core of a wider ERP, with professional reporting for multi-company organisations
- Sovereignty scores 2 to 5, the highest band of any criterion, on the strength of that Dutch contracting and hosting location
- The vendor states 2,000 specialists are ready to help, and a Trust center is available
Held against it
- GoBD compliance scores 0 to 1, with no public information on posting immutability, change history, retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation
- Documents and banking scores 0 to 1, with no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR or matching rules
- Core bookkeeping scores 1 to 3, with no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or period close
- Adviser handoff scores a flat 2, with no public information on DATEV export, any export format or adviser access to the client's books
- Tax and filings scores 1 to 2, with no public information on VAT logic, UStVA or ELSTER
Best for
- You run a multi-company SME and want finance as the core of a wider ERP, with professional reporting aimed at CFOs
- You want a vendor that names accountants as a target segment and sells firms Practice Management and Tax and Annual Reporting editions
- A Dutch contracting entity and a recorded Delft address matter to your procurement or compliance review
- Your business sits in one of the named industries — accounting, commerce, manufacturing, hospitality, professional services or construction
Avoid if
- You need published GoBD conformity — immutable postings, change history, retention, a Verfahrensdokumentation — before a Betriebsprüfung; this scored 0 to 1
- You rely on bank feeds, receipt capture and matching to keep daily bookkeeping light; this scored 0 to 1
- Your Steuerberater needs a DATEV export or a login into your books; adviser handoff sits at a flat 2 and we found no public information on a named handoff
- You must compute your real annual invoice before signing; the captured pages show no prices
The scores
Bookkeeping core
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Double-entry, the chart of accounts (SKR03/SKR04), postings, journals, opening balances and period closing — the ledger underneath the pretty screens.
0 — Income-and-expense lists only; no double-entry, no chart of accounts, no journal.
3 — Simplified bookkeeping suitable for EÜR with a fixed account list; no free posting, no period close.
5 — Double-entry with SKR03/SKR04, manual postings, journals, opening balances and a month-end close.
8 — Full ledger with cost centres, recurring and reversing entries, accruals, multi-year comparatives, and a documented close checklist with locking.
10 — An accountant's ledger: configurable charts including customised accounts, period locking with audit, foreign currency with documented valuation, group or multi-entity handling, and reporting that reconciles to the trial balance.
The Bookkeeper
The captured page markets a finance core, ERP and multi-company reporting, but we found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close — and nothing on SKR03 or SKR04. Until I can see a journal and a month that locks, this is a finance product, not a ledger I could close. 1
The Tax Adviser
Finance software is called the core of the ERP with professional multi-company reporting for CFOs, which suggests a real ledger rather than a receipt list, but the captured page says nothing about double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close — I found no public information on any of the ledger mechanics, and a year-end I cannot see is a year-end I cannot close. 1
The Auditor
The captured page presents finance as the core of an ERP with reporting for multi-company organisations, which is a claim to a real ledger rather than an expense list. Beyond that marketing statement we found no public information on double-entry mechanics, chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or period closing, so the ledger underneath cannot be assessed. 1
The Founder
The page sells a finance core wrapped in ERP and touts professional reporting for multi-company organisations, which hints at a real ledger underneath, but I found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close. I cannot close a month on a homepage claim. 1
The Integrator
The captured page positions finance software as the core of an ERP suite with professional reporting for multi-company organisations, which evidences a serious finance product but says nothing about the ledger mechanics underneath. We found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts such as SKR03 or SKR04, manual postings, journals, opening balances, or a period close. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page claims "finance software serves as the core" inside an ERP, and names multi-company reporting for CFOs — that is the full extent of the ledger evidence. We found no public information on double-entry, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or any period close. 1
GoBD, immutability & audit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the record survives a tax audit: unalterable postings, complete change history, retention across the statutory period, and a Verfahrensdokumentation the vendor actually supplies.
0 — Postings can be edited or deleted without trace; no retention statement, no GoBD claim, no documentation.
3 — GoBD asserted on the marketing page with nothing behind it — no described audit trail, no documentation offered, no statement on retention.
5 — Postings become unalterable after close with corrections booked as reversals, a change log exists, and the statutory retention period is stated.
8 — Documented GoBD conformity with a supplied Verfahrensdokumentation template, complete and exportable audit trail, receipts linked to postings, and a GoBD-compliant data export (GDPdU/Z3) for the auditor.
10 — Audit-ready as a product feature: an independent GoBD certification or attestation published, Verfahrensdokumentation maintained per release, tamper-evident journals, retention executed across the full statutory period, and an export the Betriebsprüfer accepts without argument.
The Bookkeeper
We found no public information on GoBD, immutability of postings, change history, retention periods or a Verfahrensdokumentation in the captured material. Not even a marketing-level GoBD claim exists here to test, so I have nothing on which the books would survive an audit. 1
The Tax Adviser
I found no public information on GoBD conformity anywhere: no claim, no statement that postings become unalterable, no retention period, and no Verfahrensdokumentation offered. Without even a marketing-page assertion there is nothing here I could defend in a Betriebsprüfung. 1
The Auditor
For a Betriebsprüfung there is nothing to work with: we found no public information on posting immutability, corrections as reversals, change history, statutory retention, a GoBD claim, or any supplied Verfahrensdokumentation. 1
The Founder
I found no public information on GoBD, posting immutability, change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the captured pages. If the vendor's own trust centre holds it, the capture does not show it, and for a Betriebsprüfung that silence is the whole story. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on GoBD conformity, unalterable postings, a change history, statutory retention, or a Verfahrensdokumentation — published evidence on this criterion is silence, and I score it at the bottom accordingly. A trust center is mentioned, but nothing captured from it touches immutability or audit. 1
The Skeptic
I have seen "GoBD-konform" printed on pages with nothing behind it; here we found no public information even on the claim itself — no conformity assertion, no audit trail described, no retention statement, no Verfahrensdokumentation offered. 1
Tax handling & filings
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
VAT logic and the filings that follow: UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR or Bilanz, OSS for cross-border sales, and reverse-charge handling.
0 — No VAT logic beyond a rate field; no filings, no ELSTER.
3 — VAT rates and a UStVA figure to copy out by hand; no electronic submission, no special cases.
5 — UStVA prepared and submitted electronically via ELSTER, EÜR or a simple balance sheet produced, and reverse-charge and intra-community supply handled.
8 — The above plus OSS handling for cross-border B2C, Zusammenfassende Meldung, small-business (§19) and Ist/Soll taxation, permanent extension (Dauerfristverlängerung), and E-Bilanz where relevant.
10 — The filing year is handled end to end: every routine German filing generated and submitted electronically with validation before sending, cross-border VAT determined from the transaction rather than by hand, and correction filings supported.
The Bookkeeper
The only tax-relevant fact is a product line named for tax and annual reporting aimed at accounting firms; we found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or OSS. A tax-named edition is a title, not a filing. 1
The Tax Adviser
The only tax content is that accounting firms get specific Tax and Annual Reporting editions; on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR, OSS or reverse charge I found no public information. A tax edition named for practices is not a German filing I can rely on. 1
The Auditor
The page names specific Tax and Annual Reporting editions aimed at accounting firms, which gestures at filing capability, but we found no public information on VAT logic, ELSTER submission, EÜR or balance sheet preparation, reverse-charge or OSS handling. 1
The Founder
The only tax signal is that accountancy firms get specific Tax and Annual Reporting editions; I found no public information on UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR, reverse charge or OSS. My VAT return on a Sunday stays a complete mystery from these pages. 1
The Integrator
The only tax-related statement on the captured pages is that accounting firms get specific Tax and Annual Reporting editions, which names no filing and no jurisdiction's rules. We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR or Bilanz, OSS, or reverse-charge handling. 1
The Skeptic
The only tax fact is that accounting firms get "specific Tax and Annual Reporting editions" — a product-line name aimed at practitioners, not evidence of filing logic in the books. We found no public information on VAT handling, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse charge. 1
Receipts, banking & matching
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How evidence and money get into the ledger: bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, and whether the digital receipt is legally sufficient on its own.
0 — Manual entry only; no bank connection, no receipt storage.
3 — Bank statement import by file and receipt upload as plain attachments; matching is entirely manual.
5 — Automatic bank feeds for the major German banks, receipt upload with OCR, suggested matches, and receipts linked to their postings.
8 — PSD2 feeds across many institutions, rule-based automatic matching with learning, e-invoice handling (ZUGFeRD/XRechnung) both directions, and replacement scanning (ersetzendes Scannen) documented so paper can be destroyed.
10 — The evidence chain is closed: every posting reaches its receipt in one click, e-invoicing inbound and outbound as standard, documented compliant archiving of the digital original, and matching accurate enough that exceptions rather than transactions are the work.
The Bookkeeper
We found no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR, matching rules or replacement scanning. The generically advertised AI features are not evidence of any of it — I cannot count exceptions an automation never shown would leave behind. 1
The Tax Adviser
On bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR and matching the captured pages show nothing beyond an unspecified promise of powerful AI features; I found no public information on bank connectivity, receipt storage, e-invoice handling or matching rules. 1
The Auditor
We found no public information on bank connections, receipt capture, OCR or matching; the only adjacent statement is a generic line about powerful AI features, which evidences nothing about how receipts and money reach the ledger. 1
The Founder
Beyond a claim of being 'Equipped with powerful AI features' I found no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR, matching rules or compliant archiving of the digital original. The exact thing I pay for — feeds that match themselves — is undescribed. 1
The Integrator
Nothing captured describes bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, or e-invoicing in either direction, and there is no documented API I could connect a payment provider or payroll to. The single adjacent statement — 'equipped with powerful AI features' — names no capability that touches the evidence chain. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on bank feeds, receipt capture, OCR, matching rules or archiving of digital originals. "Equipped with powerful AI features" is the nearest statement on the page, and it names no feature at all. 1
Tax adviser handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the books reach the Steuerberater — DATEV above all — and whether the adviser can work in the system rather than around it.
0 — No adviser access and no accounting export; the year-end is a pile of PDFs.
3 — Generic CSV or Excel export described as "suitable for your tax adviser", with no named format.
5 — A documented DATEV export (postings and, ideally, receipts) plus a read-only login for the adviser.
8 — DATEV export including receipt images with correct linking, or a maintained DATEV interface; the adviser gets their own scoped access with an audit of what they changed.
10 — The adviser is a first-class user: bidirectional DATEV exchange including corrections coming back, or a certified interface; period handover with locking, and a workflow where adviser queries are resolved inside the system.
The Bookkeeper
Accountants are a named segment with dedicated accountancy editions and practice management, so the adviser relationship exists in the vendor's positioning. But we found no public information on DATEV export, any named accounting export format, or an adviser login — the handoff I actually need is unevidenced. 1
The Tax Adviser
The vendor aims squarely at the accountant relationship — small and medium businesses and their accountants are the stated target, and firms get practice management plus tax editions — but that is tooling for the practice, not a handoff: I found no public information on a DATEV export, an adviser login, or scoped access with a clean period handover. 1
The Auditor
Accountants are an explicit target segment with dedicated editions and practice management capabilities, so the adviser is clearly contemplated as a customer. We found no public information on how the books reach the Steuerberater, on any export format, or on DATEV or adviser access to the client's ledger. 1
The Founder
The vendor clearly courts accountants, naming Practice Management capabilities and editions for firms serving small and medium-sized businesses, but I found no public information on a DATEV export, any named accounting export format, or a login my Steuerberater could actually work in. 1
The Integrator
Accountants are a named target segment, with practice management capabilities and tax editions marketed to firms, so the adviser clearly exists in this vendor's world. But the captured pages name no handoff mechanism at all: we found no public information on a DATEV export, any named accounting export format, or adviser access to a client's books. 1
The Skeptic
Accountants are plainly a target audience — practice management editions and firm tooling are named — but that is software for the firm's own operations. We found no public information on DATEV export, on any named handoff format, or on an adviser login into the client's books. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the books live and who could be compelled to produce them — plus, uniquely here, whether statutory retention survives leaving the vendor. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed — with a ten-year retention obligation attached to data held abroad.
3 — EU hosting offered while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — OCR, AI categorisation, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU or German hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, full subprocessor list published, and a stated export that satisfies retention if the contract ends.
10 — Sovereign and durable: German or EU hosting throughout, every subprocessor European, certification published, and a documented archive export that keeps the customer compliant for the full retention period after they leave.
The Bookkeeper
The books sit at a Dutch address under the EU contracting entity Exact B.V., which is a genuine start. We found no public information on a subprocessor list, the infrastructure behind the AI features, or an export that keeps statutory retention alive after the contract ends — only a link labelled Trust center. 1
The Tax Adviser
Exact B.V. contracts from Delft in the Netherlands and runs a trust center, but hosting location is not stated and no subprocessor list appears on the captured pages, and the independently sourced sovereignty attributes are empty. I cannot say where the books live, who could be compelled to produce them, or whether retention survives leaving the vendor. 1
The Auditor
Hosting and the contracting entity sit in Delft, so the books stay with a Dutch provider under EU law. Beyond that we found no public information on named infrastructure, a subprocessor list, certification, or an export that would satisfy statutory retention if the contract ends; a trust center is mentioned but its contents are not shown. 1
The Founder
The contracting entity is Dutch and the recorded hosting address sits in Delft, so the books are on EU ground, but the capture carries no sovereignty attributes and I found no public information on a subprocessor list, published certification, or an archive export that satisfies retention if the contract ends. 1
The Integrator
Exact B.V. gives a Dutch contracting entity and a Delft address, and a trust center exists, which keeps this above the floor. We found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors, or any archive export that would keep a departing customer compliant for the retention period. 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Exact B.V. and the Netherlands address on record gives an EU location for hosting, which is European on both counts. But we found no public information on subprocessors, on where the "powerful AI features" process data, or on any export that would satisfy statutory retention if the contract ends; the independent sovereignty record came back empty. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a business can compute the real annual invoice — including the bookings, users, bank accounts and adviser access they actually need — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A headline monthly price exists, but booking or document limits, extra users or the tier where DATEV export begins are unstated.
5 — Tier prices public with billing period stated and the main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (DATEV export, extra bank accounts, adviser seat) sits in an unpriced tier.
8 — Every tier and add-on priced publicly with limits, overage, minimum term and VAT treatment stated; adviser access priced or explicitly free.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given transaction volume, user count and feature set, including overage and the year-end extras.
The Bookkeeper
The captured pages carry no tier names, no figures, no billing periods and no limits — we found no public prices at all. A business cannot compute any part of its annual invoice from this. 1
The Tax Adviser
No tier, no monthly figure, no booking or document limit, no add-on price appears anywhere on the captured pages — I found no public information on pricing, so no business could compute a real annual invoice from them. 1
The Auditor
The captured page shows no prices at all, so a business cannot begin to compute an annual invoice; we found no public information on tiers, booking or document limits, extra users, adviser access, or billing terms. 1
The Founder
The captured page shows no price, no tier, no billing period and no booking or document limit, so I cannot even begin to compute the real annual invoice. I always check that before the sales call, and here there is nothing to check. 1
The Integrator
We found no public prices in the captured material: no tier prices, no billing period, no booking or document limits, and no add-on pricing. A business cannot compute any part of a real annual invoice from these pages, so this criterion takes the lowest score. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on prices, tiers, billing periods, booking or document limits, or add-ons — the things I read for, like the tier where DATEV export appears or the cost of an extra bank account, are simply unanswered. A business cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from the captured page. 1
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (exact.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (exact.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.exact.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →