Accounting
FreeAgent
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by FreeAgent Central Ltd (a NatWest Group company) · www.freeagent.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
FreeAgent is accounting software from FreeAgent Central Ltd, a NatWest Group company registered in Scotland, judged here on a single captured vendor page. It scores strongest on connectivity and collaboration: documents and banking at 3–4 rests on a Financial Conduct Authority registration for account information services under firm reference 799763, and adviser handoff at 2–4 rests on the offer to invite an accountant or bookkeeper to work "in real time". Tax and filings is the one flagged split, running 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1: four judges credit HMRC-recognised VAT and Self Assessment submission as real electronic filing, while the tax adviser gives 1 — HMRC is "the wrong revenue authority" for clients who file via ELSTER — and the skeptic 2, finding German filings unevidenced. Weakest is GoBD compliance at 0 to 0; bookkeeping core at 0–2, sovereignty at 0–1 for a Scotland-registered entity with no public information on hosting or subprocessors, and pricing transparency at 0–1, where only the 30-day trial terms are public.
Speaks for it
- Financial Conduct Authority registration for account information services (firm reference 799763) gives a regulated, verifiable basis for bank connections
- VAT and Self Assessment returns are submitted directly to HMRC through an HMRC-recognised Making Tax Digital solution
- An accountant or bookkeeper can be invited to work in the books in real time rather than around them
- A documented FreeAgent API exists
- The 30-day free trial requires no payment card and can be cancelled at any time
Held against it
- GoBD compliance scores 0 across the computed range, with no public information on posting immutability, change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation
- The filing evidence on the captured pages points at HMRC, with no public information on UStVA via ELSTER, EÜR, OSS or reverse-charge handling
- No public information on the ledger underneath — double-entry, an SKR03/SKR04 chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close
- The contracting entity is FreeAgent Central Ltd, registered in Scotland, with no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or a retention-satisfying export
- Only trial terms are public — no tier prices, billing periods, booking limits or adviser-seat costs appear, so an annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages
Best for
- You file VAT and Self Assessment with HMRC and want a recognised, end-to-end submission route
- You want your accountant or bookkeeper collaborating inside your books in real time rather than through a year-end pile of PDFs
- You want a regulated bank-feed connection as the foundation of your bookkeeping
- You want to evaluate before committing, with a 30-day free trial, no payment card required and the option to cancel at any time
Avoid if
- You must file UStVA, EÜR or a Bilanz via ELSTER — the submission route evidenced on the captured pages runs to HMRC, not to German authorities
- Your books must survive a German tax audit — GoBD compliance scores 0 across the computed range
- You need an EU-based contracting party or documented hosting — the vendor of record is registered in Scotland and we found no public information on hosting location or subprocessors
- You must know your annual cost before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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 shows a functioning accounting product — VAT returns, payroll, an API — but I found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or any period close. From this evidence I cannot see the ledger underneath the screens, and I score what I can see. 1
The Tax Adviser
The captured page calls it "award-winning accounting software" with an accountant invite and payroll, and stops there — we found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts such as SKR03 or SKR04, journals, opening balances or period closing. An unevidenced ledger is worth the bottom of the scale, however good the screens look. 1
The Auditor
The captured pages present it as award-winning accounting software with payroll since 2007, but for the ledger underneath — double-entry, a chart of accounts such as SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances, period closing — we found no public information. I cannot audit postings the vendor never describes. 1
The Founder
The captured page sells award-winning accounting software with payroll, but I found no public information on the ledger underneath — nothing on double-entry, an SKR03 or SKR04 chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close. For my Sunday bookkeeping there is no evidenced ledger to judge, so this sits at the bottom with a point only for the general accounting claim. 1
The Integrator
The captured page presents award-winning accounting software running since 2007 with VAT returns, Self Assessment and payroll, but says nothing about the ledger underneath: we found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close. A homepage capture that evidences no ledger mechanics scores at the floor for me, nudged up one point only because VAT and payroll workflows imply postings happen somewhere. 1
The Skeptic
The captured page markets "accounting software helping small businesses" since 2007 but I found no public information on double-entry bookkeeping, a chart of accounts such as SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close. With the ledger entirely unevidenced, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 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
I found no public information on GoBD conformity, unalterable postings, a change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation. The compliance story on the captured page is HMRC and Making Tax Digital, which says nothing about surviving a German Betriebsprüfung. 1
The Tax Adviser
We found no public information on posting immutability, change history, retention periods or a Verfahrensdokumentation; the compliance claim on offer is HMRC recognition, which answers a British auditor, not a Betriebsprüfer. Total silence on audit survival scores at zero. 1
The Auditor
I asked for the Verfahrensdokumentation and found no public information on unalterable postings, corrections booked as reversals, a change history, statutory retention, any GoBD statement, or an auditor-ready data export. For a German tax audit that is the entire criterion, and the captured pages are silent on it. 1
The Founder
I found no public information on GoBD conformity, an audit trail, posting immutability or retention periods anywhere on the captured page; the only compliance statement shown is FCA registration for account information services, which says nothing about a bookkeeping record surviving a tax audit. With no GoBD claim, no change-history description and no documentation offered, this is the absence case. 1
The Integrator
We found no public information on GoBD conformity, posting immutability, a change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation, and the captured page makes no GoBD claim at all. A claim this central to audit survival needs at least one line of substance behind it; here there is none. 1
The Skeptic
This is the check I always run first: I found no public information on GoBD conformity, posting immutability, change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation — not even the marketing-page assertion. An audit in Germany would rest on nothing published here. 1
Tax handling & filings
panel disagrees
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
Electronic filing is real and evidenced — HMRC-recognised VAT and Self Assessment returns submitted directly — so this is not a copy-the-figure-by-hand product. But every filing capability shown points at HMRC; I found no public information on UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR, reverse-charge, OSS or any German filing. 1
The Tax Adviser
Submitting VAT and Self Assessment returns directly to HMRC proves an electronic filing pipeline works — but to the wrong revenue authority for my clients. We found no public information on UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or Bilanz, OSS, or reverse-charge handling, so one point for a functioning submission channel and nothing more. 1
The Auditor
An HMRC-recognised solution submitting VAT and Self Assessment returns directly is genuine electronic filing, but for the UK authority rather than the German ones. We found no public information on UStVA via ELSTER, EÜR, OSS or reverse-charge handling, which is what I measure. 1
The Founder
Electronic filing is genuinely evidenced — HMRC-recognised Making Tax Digital with VAT and Self Assessment returns submitted directly — but that is HMRC, not ELSTER, and I found no public information on UStVA, EÜR or a balance sheet, OSS, Dauerfristverlängerung or reverse-charge handling. Real electronic submission to a tax authority earns a point above copying figures out by hand, but nothing on the German filing year is evidenced. 1
The Integrator
Electronic submission of VAT and Self Assessment returns directly to HMRC is evidenced, with HMRC recognition for Making Tax Digital claimed — genuinely filed end to end, just to the UK authority. For the filings this market needs we found no public information on UStVA via ELSTER, EÜR, reverse-charge or OSS handling. 1
The Skeptic
What is confirmed is UK machinery: an HMRC-recognised solution submitting VAT and Self Assessment directly, plus payroll. I found no public information on UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or Bilanz, OSS or reverse-charge — so against the German filing yardstick almost everything is unevidenced. 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
The FCA registration for account information services evidences a regulated, feed-based route to bank data, which is the right foundation. I found no public information on receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, ZUGFeRD or XRechnung handling, or replacement scanning, so I cannot judge how many exceptions the automation would leave me. 1
The Tax Adviser
Registration with the Financial Conduct Authority for account information services is a solid, regulated basis for automatic bank connections. We found no public information on receipt capture, OCR, matching rules or e-invoice handling, so the feeds are credited and the evidence chain beyond them is not. 1
The Auditor
An FCA registration for account information services under firm reference 799763 is a regulator's confirmation that bank connections exist, the strongest item in the file. We found no public information on receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, e-invoicing or compliant archiving of the digital original. 1
The Founder
FCA registration for account information services is firm evidence of regulated bank-feed connectivity, which is the part of my Sunday I most want to hand off; but the AIS scope is not tied to German banks and I found no public information on receipt capture, OCR, suggested or rule-based matching, or ZUGFeRD/XRechnung handling. Automatic feeds evidenced without any document-side evidence lands this between the two anchors. 1
The Integrator
Registration with the FCA under the Payment Services Regulations for account information services evidences a regulated bank-data connection, which is the plumbing I look for first. On everything above the pipe we found no public information: no receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, or e-invoicing in either direction, and nothing on German bank feeds or ZUGFeRD/XRechnung. 1
The Skeptic
The FCA registration for account information services (firm reference 799763) is genuine, verifiable evidence of a regulated bank-connection capability, which lifts this above manual entry. Beyond it I found no public information on receipt capture, OCR, matching rules, e-invoicing (ZUGFeRD/XRechnung) or replacement scanning. 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
An accountant or bookkeeper can be invited to work in the books in real time — that is the right shape of collaboration, better than a pile of PDFs. I found no public information on DATEV export or any named accounting export format, so the route to a German adviser practice is unevidenced. 1
The Tax Adviser
An accountant or bookkeeper can be invited to work in the system in real time — genuine adviser access rather than a year-end pile of PDFs. We found no public information on a DATEV export or any named accounting export format, and for a Steuerberater who works in DATEV that gap is the whole criterion. 1
The Auditor
The vendor invites the accountant or bookkeeper to work together in real time, which points to collaboration inside the system rather than a pile of PDFs. We found no public information on a DATEV export, on export formats for postings and receipts, or on auditing what an adviser changed — and DATEV is the first question a German adviser asks. 1
The Founder
The captured page shows I can invite my accountant or bookkeeper to start working seamlessly together in real time, which points at the adviser working inside the system rather than around it; I found no public information on a DATEV export, on export formats for the year-end, or on what the adviser's access can see and change. Collaboration evidenced, handoff format not. 1
The Integrator
The invite model is real collaboration — "send your accountant or bookkeeper an invite to start working seamlessly together in real time" means the adviser works in the books rather than around them, and a documented API exists. But we found no public information on DATEV export or any named handoff format, which is the first thing an adviser here would ask for. 1
The Skeptic
The page does offer "send your accountant or bookkeeper an invite to start working seamlessly together in real time", which is real in-system collaboration rather than a pile of PDFs. But I found no public information on any export format — DATEV is never named, nor CSV — and nothing on a read-only or scoped adviser login. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
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 contracting entity is FreeAgent Central Ltd, registered in Scotland (a non-EU jurisdiction), part of NatWest Group. I found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, certifications, or any export that would satisfy statutory retention after leaving the vendor. 1
The Tax Adviser
The contracting entity is registered in Scotland under Scottish jurisdiction, and we found no public information on hosting locations or subprocessors — a non-EU chain, with German statutory retention periods to serve from it. The sovereignty record came back empty, which places this at zero. 1
The Auditor
The contracting entity is FreeAgent Central Ltd, registered in Scotland under number SC316774, outside the EU, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or an export that would satisfy statutory retention after leaving. With German retention duties on the books, I would want all of that in writing before the data move. 1
The Founder
The contracting entity is FreeAgent Central Ltd registered in Scotland, outside the EU, and I found no public information on hosting location, a subprocessor list, certifications, or an archive export that would keep my retention obligation alive if I left. A named non-EU entity with nothing on record for the rest of the chain sits just above the bottom. 1
The Integrator
The contracting entity is FreeAgent Central Ltd, registered in Scotland within the NatWest Group — outside the EU — and the only regulator on record is the UK's Financial Conduct Authority. We found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or any export that would satisfy statutory retention after the contract ends, so nothing separates the books from a compelled foreign disclosure. 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is FreeAgent Central Ltd registered in Scotland (company number SC316774, UK jurisdiction), hosting is unstated, and I found no public information on subprocessors or on an archive export that would satisfy retention after leaving. A non-EU entity, unstated hosting and an unexplained chain put this at the bottom; the one bright spot is the FCA-regulated bank connection inside a UK framework. 1
Pricing transparency
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 only commercial terms captured are the 30-day free trial, cancel at any time, with no payment card required. I found no public information on tier prices, limits, users, adviser seats or VAT treatment, so a business cannot compute its annual invoice from this page. 1
The Tax Adviser
All that is priced in public is trying it: a 30-day free trial, no payment card required, cancel at any time. The captured pages give no tier prices, booking or user limits, minimum term or VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice is not computable from them. 1
The Auditor
The only pricing facts on the captured pages are a 30-day free trial, no payment card required, and cancel at any time. We found no public information on tier prices, billing period, booking or document limits, or the cost of adviser access — a business cannot compute its annual invoice from this. 1
The Founder
The only pricing information on the captured page is a 30-day free trial with no payment card required and cancel at any time; I found no public information on tier prices, booking or document limits, extra users, bank accounts or adviser access. I cannot compute even a headline annual invoice from what is public, let alone the real one. 1
The Integrator
The only pricing facts on the captured page concern the trial: 30 days free, no payment card required, cancel at any time. No tier price, booking limit, billing period, term or VAT treatment appears anywhere, so a business cannot compute any annual invoice from public information — we found no public information on prices at all. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing facts captured are the 30-day free trial, no payment card required, cancel at any time. I found no public information on tier prices, billing periods, booking or document limits, the cost of an extra bank account, or the tier where an adviser export begins — so a real annual invoice is not computable from these pages. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in GB | 1/3 pts | 2 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 7 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.freeagent.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.freeagent.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.freeagent.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Tax handling & filings — found from sitemap www.freeagent.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Tax handling & filings — found from sitemap www.freeagent.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.freeagent.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.freeagent.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap www.freeagent.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →