Accounting
Xero
Rest of world 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 Xero Limited · www.xero.com
Compare with Lexware Office → Compare with QuickBooks → 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.
No written verdict for this product
The panel scored Xero, but the summary our synthesizer wrote did not survive our own contradiction check — twice. Rather than print a paragraph we cannot stand behind, we print none. Every score, rationale and source below is unaffected; read them and draw the conclusion yourself.
The scores
Bookkeeping core
panel disagrees
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 evidence names modules 'invoicing, payroll, and reporting' and features like reconcile, dashboards and forecasts — but not one word on double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals, opening balances or a period close. A ledger that isn't evidenced doesn't exist; this sits at the anchor-0 floor. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
The modules are invoicing, payroll and reporting, with bill entry and bank reconciliation on the feature list — a real business's paperwork, but no evidence of a chart of accounts, a journal, free postings, opening balances or any period close. For my clients that is a cash ledger with pretty dashboards, not books I could close a year from. 1 2
The Auditor
The evidence evidences invoicing, bank reconciliation and 'real-time reports' — a ledger of some sort exists — but not one word on double-entry, journals, a chart of accounts, SKR03/SKR04, opening balances or a period close. I can only audit what the vendor documents, and that tops out at simplified bookkeeping with no free posting and no close. 1 2
The Founder
The evidence evidences invoicing, bill entry and reconciliation, but not one word about a double-entry ledger, SKR03/SKR04, journals, opening balances or a period close — for German books that's the entire engine missing. I'd be buying an invoicing app with an invisible ledger underneath. 1 2
The Integrator
The evidence markets 'Invoicing, payroll, and reporting' plus bank reconciliation and real-time reports, but there is no evidence of double-entry, a chart of accounts, journals or a period close — let alone SKR03/SKR04. Anchors treat absence as information: screens exist, but no German ledger is evidenced underneath them. 1 2
The Skeptic
The evidence evidences invoicing, bill entry, bank reconciliation and reports — the pretty screens — but not one word about double-entry, a chart of accounts, a journal, opening balances or a period close. No SKR03/SKR04 anywhere, so as evidenced there is no German ledger underneath at all. 1 2
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
No GoBD claim, no immutability or change history, no retention statement, no Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the registry; the only compliance artefact is a SOC 2 report available on request. Nothing would survive a Betriebsprüfung on this evidence. 3
The Tax Adviser
Not one word about GoBD, immutability, a change log, or retention anywhere in the evidence; the privacy notice identifies only a New Zealand 'Xero group of companies' and says nothing about keeping records for the statutory period. A Betriebsprüfung against these books would start with the question of whether a posting can be deleted — and the vendor never answers it. 1 2 3
The Auditor
No GoBD claim, no retention statement, no change log, no Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere on these pages; the sole compliance artifact is a SOC 2 report 'available on request', which says nothing about unalterable postings or statutory German retention. The silence is the finding — nothing here survives a Betriebsprüfung. 1 2 3
The Founder
Across the homepage, pricing and privacy pages there is no GoBD claim, no statement that postings become unalterable, no retention period, no Verfahrensdokumentation. If the Betriebsprüfer knocks, I have nothing to hand over — that is the definition of the zero anchor. 1 2 3
The Integrator
No GoBD claim, no retention statement, no audit trail and no Verfahrensdokumentation anywhere in the registry; the sole control evidence is a SOC 2 report available on request, which is a US framework and says nothing about German immutability or retention. That is rubric level 0 exactly. 3
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
No VAT logic, no UStVA, no ELSTER, no EÜR, no OSS — the feature lists and module lists are entirely silent on German filings. That is rubric level 0 with nothing to interpolate from. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
No VAT logic of any kind is evidenced — not even a rate field — and nothing on UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR, Bilanz or reverse-charge. The evidence's own provenance says it was included to be judged against German filing requirements it does not target, and the features bear that out. 1 2
The Auditor
Not a word on VAT rates, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or OSS; the tax-relevant facts end at 'use multiple currencies' in the Premium tier. The provenance itself concedes the German filing requirements are not targeted, and the evidence proves it. 1 2
The Founder
Nothing on VAT rates, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse-charge anywhere in the evidence — the Sunday afternoon I want back would still end at the tax office by hand. For a German filing year this is a zero, not a weak spot. 1 2
The Integrator
Not one word on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER, EÜR or reverse charge; the closest fact is multi-currency on the Premium tier. A rate field isn't even evidenced, so this sits at the bottom anchor. 1 2
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
'Auto-reconcile bank transactions', 'Bulk reconcile transactions', 'Automate bill entry' and 'Smart Document Capture' lift it above manual file import and plain attachments, but no German banks, no ZUGFeRD/XRechnung, no ersetzendes Scannen and no evidenced receipt-to-posting link keep it under the 5 anchor. 2
The Tax Adviser
Bank reconciliation, auto-reconcile, bulk reconcile and Smart Document Capture are on the pricing page, so receipts and statements can at least enter the system and matching is not purely manual. But there is no evidence of German bank feeds, OCR, ZUGFeRD/XRechnung, or ersetzendes Scannen — so the digital receipt's legal standing and the paper's fate are both unanswered. 2
The Auditor
'Smart Document Capture' plus 'auto-reconcile' and 'bulk reconcile' clear the purely-manual bar and suggest receipt capture with suggested matching. But no evidence of bank feeds for German banks, of ZUGFeRD/XRechnung handling, or of documented ersetzendes Scannen — whether the digital receipt is legally sufficient on its own is unevidenced. 2
The Founder
Auto-reconcile, bulk reconcile and Smart Document Capture suggest the money side is partly automated, which is exactly what I want on a Sunday. But there is no evidence of German bank feeds, actual OCR, matching rules, ZUGFeRD/XRechnung, or ersetzendes Scannen — promising screens, unproven evidence chain. 1 2
The Integrator
'Reconcile bank transactions', 'Auto-reconcile', 'Bulk reconcile' and 'Smart Document Capture' evidence semi-automatic matching and receipt capture, which is better than manual-only. But no German bank feeds, no OCR detail, no ZUGFeRD/XRechnung in either direction and no ersetzendes Scannen are evidenced — between rubric level 3 and 5. 2
The Skeptic
'Smart Document Capture' and 'Auto-reconcile / bulk reconcile transactions' are stated, which is a step past purely manual matching. But there is no evidence of automatic feeds for German banks, no OCR named, no ZUGFeRD/XRechnung, and nothing on whether a scan can legally replace paper. 2
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
'Over 250,000 accountants and bookkeepers using Xero' evidences an adviser ecosystem in-product, which is better than nothing. But there is no export format on the evidence at all — no DATEV, not even a generic CSV claim — so the German handoff is entirely unevidenced. 1
The Tax Adviser
The homepage boasts 'over 250,000 accountants and bookkeepers using Xero', which tells me an adviser ecosystem exists somewhere — but there is no export of any named format, no DATEV anything, and no described adviser access to a client's books. My year-end would be screenshots and hope. 1
The Auditor
'250,000 accountants and bookkeepers using Xero' evidences a partner network, but the evidence names no export format at all — no DATEV, not even a generic CSV — and no adviser access model or audit of adviser actions. How the books reach a Steuerberater is simply not documented. 1
The Founder
A quarter-million accountants and bookkeepers use Xero, so my Steuerberater might get a login — but the evidence shows no DATEV export, no postings export, no German year-end handoff at all. The handover would be PDFs and screenshots, which is exactly what I refuse to pay for. 1 2
The Integrator
The only adviser signal is 'over 250,000 accountants and bookkeepers using Xero' — a network count, not a handoff capability, and I read marketing numbers the way I read a Zapier logo. No export format is named, DATEV is entirely absent, and no adviser login is described, so the German Steuerberater gets nothing documented. 1
The Skeptic
'Over 250,000 accountants and bookkeepers using Xero' implies advisers can get in somehow, but the evidence names no export format at all — no DATEV, not even the generic 'CSV for your tax adviser' line. Nothing shows how a German year-end would actually reach a Steuerberater. 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 side is the 'Xero group of companies… headquartered in New Zealand'; 'Region Global (USD)' is a pricing region, not a hosting statement; residency, subprocessors and ownership are all unknown. Non-EU entity with hosting unstated and subprocessors unnamed, while German retention obligations would hang on it — rubric level 0. 1 2 3
The Tax Adviser
Contracting entity is a New Zealand group, hosting is stated only as 'Global (USD)', data residency, ownership and every subprocessor are unknown, and no export is described that would satisfy German retention if the contract ends. The books of a German client would sit under a non-EU authority for ten years with nothing in this sheet to govern that. 1 3
The Auditor
The contracting entity is the New Zealand-headquartered Xero group of companies, hosting is stated only as 'Region Global (USD)', and the subprocessor list is unknown — with a ten-year German retention obligation attached to books held under a non-EU vendor with unstated hosting. That is the zero anchor almost verbatim. 1 3
The Founder
New Zealand group entity, hosting stated only as 'Global (USD)', subprocessors unnamed, with my ten-year German retention obligation hanging over all of it; a SOC 2 report on request is an American control audit, not European hosting. The books would live where I cannot compel them to be produced. 1 3
The Integrator
The contracting entity is the 'Xero group of companies' headquartered in New Zealand, hosting is unstated beyond 'Global (USD)', and the subprocessor list is absent — while German books carry a ten-year retention obligation attached to data held abroad. rubric level 0 on every attribute the pipeline could compute. 1 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is the New Zealand 'Xero group of companies', data residency is unknown, subprocessors unnamed — the 0 of 10 matches the bottom anchor exactly. With no documented exit export, a ten-year German retention obligation would sit on books held by a non-EU vendor with no stated safeguard. 1 3
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
Tiers, promo terms, per-tier invoice/bill limits, priced add-ons (from $4, $7) and one-month cancellation are public, which is genuinely computable for the base case. But VAT treatment, an adviser seat and annual billing are unstated, leaving the commonly-needed-piece gap that rubric level 5 describes and short of rubric level 8. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
Credit where due: three tiers priced with promo terms and limits ($29/$50/$75 after promo, 20 invoices and 5 bills on Starter), add-ons priced from $4–$7, one month's cancellation notice, 30-day trial. But VAT treatment, adviser seats and any year-end extras are unstated, so the real invoice is close to computable, not fully computable. 2
The Auditor
Four tiers with public prices, invoice and bill limits, two priced add-ons (expense claims from $4, projects from $7), the 80%-for-3-months promo and one-month cancellation notice are all stated. VAT treatment, adviser access pricing and what happens past the invoice/bill limits are not, so the true annual invoice remains only partly computable. 1 2
The Founder
Tier prices with promo periods, invoice and bill limits, two priced add-ons, one-month cancellation and a free trial are all public — more honest than most. But VAT treatment, extra users and any adviser seat are unstated, and 'Global (USD)' means my euro invoice still wobbles with the exchange rate. 1 2
The Integrator
Tier prices with promo periods, invoice/bill limits per tier, forecast windows, two priced add-ons (expense claims from $4, projects from $7) and one-month cancellation are public — genuinely above rubric level 5. But user counts, bank-account limits, adviser-seat pricing and VAT treatment are all unstated, so the real annual invoice for a German setup isn't computable from these pages. 2
The Skeptic
Tier prices, promo terms, one-month cancellation, invoice/bill limits and two priced add-ons are public — better than most. But user pricing, bank-account counts, overage and VAT treatment are all unstated, and the sources even disagree on tier names (Lite at $7 in E2 vs Starter at $29 in E1), so the real annual invoice isn't computable from these pages. 1 2
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 NZ ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 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 15 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 — Legal entity. Xero (NZ) Limited is named as the EEA controller with a New Zealand address and headquarters are stated to be in New Zealand, but no commercial register is cited and the terms defer the actual contracting Xero entity by product edition to section 77, which is not in the excerpt.
- 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.
- 19 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
- 18 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
- 9 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
- 4 product 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 hosting 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 integrations 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 subprocessors 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
- The panel’s written verdict is withheld: our own re-read found claims in it that the evidence does not carry, and a second synthesis did not fix them. The scores and the material below are unaffected. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.xero.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.xero.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.xero.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.xero.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.xero.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Tax handling & filings — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Tax handling & filings — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap www.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap developer.xero.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →