Not every tool fits every finance team. The right performance management platform works seamlessly with your existing ERP, scales as your organization grows, and delivers measurable ROI without requiring complete system overhauls.
Controllers and finance leaders now face a crowded marketplace where every vendor claims AI and automation. Understanding the fundamental differences between assistive tools and autonomous agents, and evaluating based on operational needs rather than buzzwords, makes the difference between transformation and disappointment.
The Software Landscape Has Changed
Traditional approaches to closing the books relied heavily on ERP modules designed primarily for transaction processing, supplemented by extensive spreadsheet manipulation. That model no longer works for most mid-market and growing organizations. Leadership demands faster reporting cycles. Multi-entity structures introduce consolidation complexity. Remote teams need collaborative workflows rather than email-based coordination.
Three distinct approaches have emerged to address these challenges:
- Traditional automation that organizes workflows
- AI assistants that help humans work smarter
- Agentic Performance Management that executes workflows autonomously
Each represents a fundamentally different operating model. For multi-entity, fast-growth organizations, understanding these differences determines whether software delivers incremental improvement or genuine transformation.
Three Approaches to Finance Performance Management: What You're Actually Comparing
The close automation market contains three distinct categories of solutions, each with different strengths, limitations, and ideal use cases.
ERP Modules
Many ERP systems offer built-in close management functionality. NetSuite Close Management, SAP's closing cockpit, and similar tools provide task tracking and basic reporting within the ERP environment.
- Strengths: These modules integrate directly with transaction data and present a familiar interface for teams already using the ERP. Many come included in software subscriptions without additional costs, making them an attractive starting point for organizations looking to improve close coordination without new vendor relationships.
- Limitations: ERP modules typically offer limited automation capabilities and often require significant customization for complex multi-entity structures. Reconciliation work remains largely manual, and implementation complexity mirrors the underlying system. Organizations seeking autonomous execution rather than better organization often outgrow these tools quickly.
- Best for: Single-entity organizations with straightforward close processes, adequate finance capacity, and strong technical ERP expertise internally. Teams that need better task organization rather than workflow execution.
AI Assistants and Copilots
AI-powered assistants and copilots help finance teams work smarter by suggesting matches, drafting commentary, and flagging exceptions. Tools like AI-enhanced reconciliation platforms and generative AI copilots focus on making humans more efficient.
- Strengths: AI assistants reduce manual effort by suggesting transaction matches, identifying likely variances, and drafting preliminary analysis. They learn from patterns and become more accurate over time. Modern interfaces make AI capabilities accessible without technical expertise, and implementation is typically faster than traditional automation.
- Limitations: AI assistants still require human execution for every transaction. They suggest, but humans must review, approve, and act on every recommendation. The bottleneck shifts from "finding matches" to "reviewing suggestions," which doesn't fundamentally change capacity constraints. As transaction volumes grow, assistant-based approaches still require proportional human scaling.
- Best for: Teams with adequate capacity looking to work more efficiently, or organizations with relatively low transaction volumes where human review of every suggestion remains manageable.
Agentic Performance Management (APM)
Agentic Performance Management platforms like Nominal deploy autonomous agents that own and execute complete accounting workflows. Unlike tools that assist humans, APM agents actually perform reconciliations, consolidations, and close processes from start to finish with adaptive decision-making and continuous improvement.
- Strengths: APM platforms execute workflows autonomously, not just assist with them. Agents handle complete processes including exception resolution, learning and adapting over time without breaking when formats change. Organizations scale operations without proportional headcount increases. Finance teams shift from operational execution to process governance and strategic work. Implementation delivers autonomous execution within weeks, and agents continuously improve performance over time.
- Limitations: APM represents a fundamental shift in operating model. Organizations must transition from "humans execute, software assists" to "agents execute, humans govern." Teams need to develop new skills in agent oversight and exception management rather than transaction processing.
- Best for: Multi-entity organizations with high transaction volumes, fast-growth companies where scaling headcount isn't viable, and teams ready to fundamentally transform operations rather than incrementally improve existing processes. Organizations where finance capacity is the strategic bottleneck.
Helpful resource:
- The 5 Best BlackLine Alternatives to Streamline Your Close
- BlackLine vs FloQast: Which Financial Close Platform Fits Your Team?
- Numeric vs FloQast: Which Close Software Works Best?
How to Choose: Evaluation Criteria That Matter
Selecting performance management software requires evaluating capabilities that directly impact your team's daily work and long-term success. Eight key criteria separate platforms that deliver genuine value from those that create new problems while solving old ones.
1. ERP Compatibility
The platform must work seamlessly with your current accounting systems. Evaluate whether the solution requires ERP migration, operates as an overlay connecting through APIs, or functions as a replacement system. Overlay solutions preserve existing investments while adding automation capabilities.
2. Multi-Entity Support
For organizations operating across multiple entities, currencies, or jurisdictions, consolidation capabilities become critical. Assess how the platform handles currency translation, intercompany eliminations, ownership structures, and segment reporting.
3. Execution vs. Assistance
Distinguish between tools that assist humans and platforms that autonomously execute workflows. Does the software suggest matches for human review, or does it perform reconciliations and escalate only genuine exceptions? True autonomous execution eliminates the human bottleneck, not just makes it more efficient.
4. Audit Readiness
Comprehensive audit trails, versioning, and documentation should generate automatically as work progresses. Systems that treat audit readiness as core functionality create dramatically different experiences during external audits.
5. Reporting Flexibility
Modern platforms provide real-time dashboards, drill-down capabilities, and customizable views. Assess whether leadership can access current information throughout the month or must wait for formal report packages.
6. Time to Value
Implementation timelines vary dramatically. Enterprise implementations measured in quarters delay benefits. Modern platforms designed for rapid deployment can deliver value within weeks.
7. AI Capabilities: Assistance vs. Autonomous Execution
Differentiate between AI that assists and agents that execute autonomously. Assistive AI suggests matches and drafts commentary. Autonomous agents actually perform reconciliations, post entries, and handle exceptions. Ask vendors specifically: does a human review every transaction, or do agents handle standard workflows autonomously and escalate only exceptions?
8. User Experience
Software designed for finance professionals versus engineers creates fundamentally different adoption experiences. Evaluate whether controllers and accountants can configure workflows without IT involvement.
Questions to Ask During Your Buying Process
Arm yourself with questions that reveal how platforms actually perform in operational reality rather than controlled demonstrations.
Does this tool execute workflows or just organize them?
Many solutions track tasks without actually reducing manual work. Push vendors for specific examples of automation and quantification of time savings.
Does your AI assist or execute autonomously?
Many vendors claim "AI-powered automation" but deliver suggestion engines. Push for specifics: Does the AI perform the reconciliation and escalate exceptions, or does it flag potential matches for human review? The difference determines whether you're eliminating bottlenecks or just making them more efficient.
What happens when transaction volumes double?
Assistive tools require proportional human scaling: more transactions mean more suggestions to review. Autonomous execution scales without additional headcount. Understanding this distinction reveals the true operational model.
Can it adapt to our close checklist or force us to fit its structure?
Some platforms require complete process redesign. Understand flexibility boundaries before committing to implementation projects.
What is the real setup cost in time, people, and integrations?
Account for implementation services, internal team time, ongoing maintenance, and integration development. Hidden costs often exceed subscription fees.
How does it handle multi-currency and intercompany workflows?
Request demonstrations using scenarios matching your organizational structure. Verify that currency translation and consolidation workflows align with accounting requirements.
Will my team actually use this?
Involve team members who will use the system daily in evaluation. Their feedback on usability predicts adoption better than feature comparisons.
How does customer support work during close cycles?
Month-end represents the worst time for software issues. Understand support availability and response times during critical periods.
What does the upgrade roadmap look like?
Evaluate vendor investment in product development and alignment between roadmap and your strategic direction.
How Nominal Fits into the Landscape
Nominal is the Agentic Performance Management platform for finance. It deploys autonomous agents that own and execute complete accounting workflows rather than assisting humans with individual tasks.
These agents perform reconciliations, handle multi-entity consolidations, and manage close processes autonomously. When an agent owns month-end close for an entity, it validates transactions, executes standard journal entries, reconciles accounts, and generates close documentation. Finance teams review final outputs and govern exceptions rather than executing every step manually.
The distinction matters:
- AI assistants suggest transaction matches; Nominal agents perform the reconciliation.
- Workflow tools route approvals; Nominal agents execute the underlying accounting work.
The result is finance operations that scale without proportional headcount increases.
The platform functions as an ERP overlay, connecting with existing accounting systems without requiring migration. Implementation typically completes in weeks. As organizations add entities, currencies, or transaction volumes, agents scale automatically without additional configuration or capacity constraints.
Organizations choose Nominal when finance capacity is their strategic bottleneck. When they're growing too fast to hire proportionally. When manual processes prevent real-time visibility. When they need autonomous execution, not better assistance.
Making Your Decision
Start by documenting what actually breaks in your current close process. Where do errors occur? What takes longest? What creates audit findings? These specific problems should drive requirements rather than generic feature lists.
Involve the people who will use the system daily throughout evaluation. Their buy-in determines adoption success. Request references from organizations with similar entity structures and ERP environments. Test the platform with your actual data during evaluation.
The right close automation software delivers measurable improvements in cycle time, error rates, and team capacity within the first quarters after implementation. Organizations that choose based on clear requirements and thorough evaluation achieve these results consistently.
Download the scorecard to compare Agentic Performance Management platforms across the criteria that matter most, so you can make a confident, informed decision.
Ready to see how Agentic Performance Management transforms finance operations? Book a demo to explore how Nominal agents can execute your close workflows autonomously.
Next: Learn practical implementation strategies and change management approaches in Chapter 6: Implementation Tips That Actually Work.
