Accounting
Yuki
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Yuki bvba · www.yuki.be
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Yuki at a glance
- Vendor
- Yuki bvba
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Yuki 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. Yuki is an accounting product from Belgian vendor Yuki bvba; persona-weighted totals range from 1.8 to 2.9. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Yuki is an accounting product from Belgian vendor Yuki bvba; persona-weighted totals range from 1.8 to 2.9. Its strongest criterion is adviser handoff, spanning 4-6: accountant–entrepreneur collaboration is integrated in the software and linked to specific documents, a back-office portal manages multiple dossiers, and a document export exists, though we found no public information on a DATEV export or any named accounting export format. Documents and banking scores 3-4, with Peppol e-invoicing in both directions and bank transactions arriving by CSV import and no published information on automatic feeds, OCR or matching rules. The weakest criteria are GoBD compliance at 0-1 and tax and filings at 0-1: we found no public information on unalterable postings, change history, retention, VAT logic or any filing route, and the only tax-adjacent item is Peppol, framed against the 1 January 2026 deadline. Bookkeeping core scores 2-4 off a beta article on general ledger accounts, and sovereignty scores 2-3 on the Belgian contracting entity, with no public information on hosting location or subprocessors. No prices appear; the route in is a personal demo.
Speaks for it
- Accountant–entrepreneur collaboration is integrated in the software and linked to specific documents
- A back-office portal lets an accounting practice manage multiple client dossiers from one dashboard
- Peppol e-invoicing sends and receives electronic invoices, framed against the 1 January 2026 deadline
- Documents are checked automatically around the clock, with quality scored out of ten across seven parts
- API documentation is published and the vendor lists integrations with more than 100 applications
Held against it
- GoBD compliance scores 0-1, with no public information on unalterable postings, change history, retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation
- Tax and filings scores 0-1, with no public information on VAT logic or any electronic filing route
- Bank transactions arrive by CSV file import, with no public information on automatic feeds, OCR or matching rules
- We found no public information on a DATEV export or any named accounting export format
- We found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or certifications, and the sovereignty record carries no attributes
Best for
- You want your accountant working inside the same software as you, with communication tied to the documents themselves
- You need to send and receive Peppol e-invoices ahead of the 1 January 2026 mandate
- You run a small practice and want a back-office portal to manage all your client dossiers from one dashboard
Avoid if
- You need VAT returns prepared and electronically filed with the tax authority
- Your records must survive a German tax audit requiring unalterable postings, statutory retention and a Verfahrensdokumentation
- You depend on automatic bank feeds and rule-based matching rather than CSV import
- Your year-end handoff depends on a DATEV export or a named ledger transfer format with period locking
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Bookkeeping core | 1.5 of 5 |
| GoBD, immutability & audit | 0 of 5 |
| Tax handling & filings | 0 of 5 |
| Receipts, banking & matching | 2 of 5 |
| Tax adviser handoff | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
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
A support article on general-ledger account improvements tells me a ledger with accounts exists, but beyond a dossier dashboard I found no public information on double-entry postings, journals, opening balances or any period close that locks the month. That is a shell around an unproven core. 1 2
The Tax Adviser
A beta support article on general ledger account improvements confirms a real ledger with accounts underneath the dashboards, but that is the whole visible core. I found no public information on double-entry postings, journals, opening balances, or a period close with locking — for closing forty clients that silence decides it. 2 1
The Auditor
A support page on general ledger account improvements tells me a real account structure exists underneath, but that is all: I found no public information on double-entry postings, journals, opening balances, or a period close with locking. For my purposes this reads as simplified bookkeeping, and nothing a Betriebsprüfer could reconstruct from. 1 2
The Founder
A support page on general ledger account improvements tells me real ledger accounts exist, but I found no public information on double-entry, journals, opening balances or any month-end close. What is published points at simplified bookkeeping with a ledger underneath, and no close process or locking I could rely on for my year-end. 1 2
The Integrator
The captures show a general ledger whose accounts are under active development and an automated quality monitor scoring dossiers on seven dimensions, but I found no public information on double-entry mechanics, journals, opening balances, a chart of accounts, or any period close. That puts the evidence at simplified-bookkeeping level. 1 2
The Skeptic
The only ledger signal is a support article titled "General ledger account improvements (beta)", a headline with no captured content; we found no public information on double-entry, a chart of accounts, manual postings, opening balances or a period close. The captured marketing pages show dashboards, dossiers and quality scores — the ledger underneath is hinted at but never shown. 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
Nothing captured addresses unalterable postings, a change history, statutory retention or a Verfahrensdokumentation; a trust center link and an automated quality score on documents are not audit evidence. I found no public information on any of this, so the record's survival in a tax audit is unproven from these pages. 1
The Tax Adviser
The captured pages are silent on immutability of postings, change history, statutory retention, and any procedural documentation; even the trust center link states nothing about its content. Where a record must survive a Betriebsprüfung, that silence is the whole answer and I score at the bottom accordingly. 1
The Auditor
The criterion that decides audits, and the captured pages are silent on every part of it: I found no public information on GoBD, on whether postings become unalterable after close, on corrections booked as reversals, on a change history, on statutory retention, or on a Verfahrensdokumentation. An automated quality monitor scoring documents out of ten is not an audit trail. 1
The Founder
A trust center is named on the marketing page and nothing more: we found no public information on GoBD, unalterable postings, change history or retention periods. For an audit, what is published gives me nothing to hand the Betriebsprüfer, so I score near the bottom. 1
The Integrator
Not a word in the captured pages about unalterable postings, a change history, statutory retention, or a Verfahrensdokumentation — even the trust center appears only as a link with no described content. An audit trail is not evidenced at any level, so this sits at the floor. 1 2
The Skeptic
The captured pages make no GoBD claim and we found no public information on posting immutability, a change history, retention periods or a Verfahrensdokumentation. A trust center link exists, but nothing behind it is captured, so there is no compliance substance here to verify at any level. 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 captured pages say nothing about VAT rates, VAT returns, electronic submission, income-statement or balance-sheet output, or cross-border schemes; I found no public information on any filing capability. Peppol is invoice transport, not a tax return. 1
The Tax Adviser
The only tax-adjacent fact is sending and receiving e-invoices over Peppol, framed against the 1 January 2026 mandate. I found no public information on VAT logic, pre-declarations, or electronic filing with any authority — nothing here a Steuerberater could lodge. 1
The Auditor
I found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, ELSTER submission, EÜR or a balance sheet, let alone OSS or reverse charge; the only tax-adjacent item is Peppol e-invoicing framed around the 1 January 2026 deadline. Nothing here evidences a filing generated, validated or submitted. 1
The Founder
We found no public information on VAT logic, UStVA, or any electronic filing route; Peppol e-invoicing is the only tax-adjacent capability named and structured invoices are not a tax return. I cannot get a VAT return submitted on Sunday night on the strength of this capture. 1
The Integrator
Electronic invoicing via Peppol, framed against the 1 January 2026 deadline, is the only tax-adjacent capability on show; I found no public information on VAT logic, reverse-charge or intra-community handling, or any filing preparation and electronic submission. Nothing here evidences a filing workflow. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on VAT logic, periodic VAT returns, electronic filing with any tax authority, or year-end accounts preparation. The automated quality checks described concern document completeness, which is not a filing. 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
Bank transactions arrive by CSV file import and Peppol e-invoicing runs in both directions, which is genuine; but I found no public information on automatic bank feeds, OCR receipt capture, matching rules or documented replacement scanning. That lands between manual-only and real feed automation, closer to the file-import end. 1 3
The Tax Adviser
Bank transactions arrive by CSV file import, which keeps matching on my desk by hand, though Peppol send-and-receive does let e-invoices flow in both directions. I found no public information on automatic bank feeds, OCR on receipts, or rule-based matching. 3 1
The Auditor
Bank transactions come in as CSV file imports and documents sit in the system where an automated monitor checks them around the clock, with Peppol inbound e-invoices offered. I found no public information on automatic bank feeds, OCR, matching rules or replacement scanning, which leaves file import with manual matching. 1 3
The Founder
Bank transactions arrive by CSV file import — a Sunday-evening chore, not a feed that matches itself — though Peppol sending and receiving of e-invoices is genuinely there and documents are checked automatically around the clock. We found no public information on OCR, suggested matches or automatic bank feeds, so I land between file import and real feeds. 1 3
The Integrator
Bank transactions come in through CSV import — file-based, not a feed — and I found no public information on OCR, suggested matches, or rule-based matching. The redeeming connection is electronic invoicing via Peppol both send and receive, which is precisely the two-way flow I look for, so I land just above the file-import level. 1 3
The Skeptic
Bank transactions arrive by CSV file import per a support article, and Peppol e-invoicing is described for both sending and receiving electronic invoices — genuinely useful. But we found no public information on automatic bank feeds, OCR on captured receipts, or matching rules, so the distance between statement and posting is unevidenced. 1 3
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
Communication between accountant and entrepreneur runs inside the software, linked to specific documents, and there is a documented document export plus a walkthrough for working with the accountant — the adviser is a user, not a PDF recipient. But I found no public information on a DATEV export, posting-level handover with locking, or any audit of what the adviser changed. 1 4 5
The Tax Adviser
Collaboration happens inside the software itself, communication tied to specific documents, and a back-office portal manages all a firm's dossiers — the adviser is genuinely a user rather than a recipient of PDFs, and a document export exists. But I found no public information on a DATEV export or any named export format for the ledger itself, nor on period handover with locking, and that is what my year-end depends on. 1 4 5
The Auditor
Communication between accountant and entrepreneur runs inside the software, linked to specific documents, and there is a document export plus a dedicated walkthrough on working with your accountant — the adviser is clearly meant to work in the system rather than around it. But I found no public information on a DATEV export, a named transfer format, or a scoped adviser login with an audit of changes. 1 4 5
The Founder
Communication with the accountant is integrated in the software and linked to specific documents, which is more than a pile of PDFs, and a document export is documented by title. We found no public information on any named accounting export format — for me that means DATEV — and no evidence of the adviser working the postings themselves, so this sits below a real handoff. 1 4 5
The Integrator
The adviser works inside the product rather than around it: collaboration is integrated in the software and linked to specific documents, a back-office portal manages multiple dossiers, and documents can be exported. I found no public information on a DATEV export or any named accounting export format, nor on auditing what the adviser changed, which caps it below the scoped-access level. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
Accountant–entrepreneur communication is described as integrated in the software and linked to specific documents, with a dedicated walkthrough video — the adviser is clearly meant to work inside the product. The only export on record is an article titled "Export documents" with no format named, and we found no public information on a DATEV export or a scoped adviser login. 1 4 5
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 vendor is a Belgian bvba, but I found no public information on hosting location, a subprocessor list, or an export that keeps statutory retention alive after the contract ends. Only a trust center link exists as a gesture; an unnamed subprocessor chain is exactly where this lands. 1
The Tax Adviser
The contracting entity is the Belgian Yuki bvba, so at least the books have a European owner on paper. I found no public information on where the books are hosted, on any subprocessor, or on an export that keeps statutory retention intact after the customer leaves. 1
The Auditor
No sovereignty attributes are on record: I found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, subprocessors, certification, or an export that satisfies statutory retention if the contract ends. The Belgian company form suggests an EU contracting entity, which lifts this off the floor, but where the books live and who could be compelled to produce them is undocumented. 1
The Founder
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or what happens to my retention duty if I leave. The Belgian company form behind the name suggests an EU contracting entity, but nothing published shows where the books live or who could be compelled to produce them. 1
The Integrator
The vendor is Belgian and operates a trust center, but the captured pages give no information on where the books are hosted, which subprocessors touch them, any certification, or an export that would keep retention alive after leaving. With hosting unstated and no subprocessor list, this lands between the low anchors. 1
The Skeptic
The vendor is a Belgian bvba, so the contracting entity reads as European, but we found no public information on hosting location or any subprocessor, and the sovereignty record carries no attributes at all. A trust center link is present with nothing captured behind it. 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
No price appears anywhere in the captured material — no tiers, no limits, no billing period, no VAT treatment; the offered route in is a personal demo. From these pages a business cannot compute any part of the annual invoice. 1
The Tax Adviser
No price, tier, limit, or billing period appears anywhere in the captured pages; the route offered is a personal demo. A business cannot compute even a first month's invoice from what is public. 1
The Auditor
The captured pages offer a personal demo and show no price figure; I found no public information on tiers, booking or document limits, extra users, adviser access, or VAT treatment. No business could compute an annual invoice from what is published. 1
The Founder
No price appears anywhere in the captured material; the stated route in is a personal demo, which is a sales conversation by definition. Without tiers, limits, users, bank accounts or VAT treatment published, I cannot begin to compute my annual invoice, and I always check exactly that. 1
The Integrator
I found no public price information of any kind — no tier, no limit, no billing period — and the only commercial touchpoint shown is a personal demo. A business cannot begin to compute its annual invoice from the public pages. 1
The Skeptic
The captured pages offer a personal demo and we found no public information on prices — no tier figures, no booking or document limits, no cost for an extra user, bank account or adviser seat. A buyer cannot compute any annual invoice from what is public here. 1
Questions about Yuki
Is Yuki European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Yuki is based.
Where does Yuki store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Yuki have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Yuki?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Papierkram (3.5/5), sevDesk (3/5) and BuchhaltungsButler (3/5) highest among the other 24 Accounting products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Papierkram (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Yuki alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 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 (yuki.be, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80001218184-general-ledger-account-improvements-beta-, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80000787612-import-bank-transactions-csv-, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80000787414-export-documents, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80000787367-step-5-communicating-with-your-accountant-in-yuki-video). 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 (yuki.be, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80001218184-general-ledger-account-improvements-beta-, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80000787612-import-bank-transactions-csv-, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80000787414-export-documents, support.yuki.be/en/support/solutions/articles/80000787367-step-5-communicating-with-your-accountant-in-yuki-video). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 21 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
- 6 data 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 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
- 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 (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.yuki.be Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Bookkeeping core — found from sitemap support.yuki.be Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Receipts, banking & matching — found from sitemap support.yuki.be Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap support.yuki.be Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Tax adviser handoff — found from sitemap support.yuki.be Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →