Prepared by Journey
01
Executive summary
Summary
Australia has 2.73m actively trading businesses, but only ~50,854 sit at A$10m+ turnover - precision targeting is critical for both products.
AccountsIQ - Finance-first consolidation
- Recommended GTM: dual-motion - Sales-led (direct) as primary pipeline engine + Partner-enabled for credibility and implementation
- Top 3 validated verticals: Construction (A$82.5m TAM), NFPs/Charities (A$80.2m TAM), Health Services (A$21.4m TAM)
- Primary competitor set: Xero + Apps (status quo), MYOB Acumatica, Odoo, NetSuite - AccountsIQ wins on implementation speed, cost-balanced consolidation, and CFO-oriented UX
- Key positioning: "finance-first consolidation without ERP overreach" - ~1/6th the cost of NetSuite for comparable multi-entity setups
ExpenseIn - Governance-first spend control
- Enter as the governance layer for growing finance teams - not another expense app or card issuer
- Strongest wedges in Construction and NFP verticals - distributed spenders, audit intensity, high leakage risk
- Primary competitor set: SAP Concur (enterprise incumbent), Airwallex/Weel (card infrastructure), ProSpend (AU-native full suite) - ExpenseIn wins on governance depth and avoids enterprise overhead
- Compete on governance maturity (pre-spend control, policy enforcement, audit readiness) - not card infrastructure
AccountsIQ can enter Australia with a combined sales-led and partner-enabled GTM that matches two realities: the Australian finance stack is heavily cloud-ledger anchored (Xero has 1.94m+ AU subscribers - integration anxiety is real), and the mid-market cohort is small by count. Success depends on tight targeting and conversion efficiency, not broad awareness.
ExpenseIn enters the same market with a complementary motion - governance-first spend control that maps to the same priority verticals. Together, the two products create a bundled value proposition that no competitor can match: finance consolidation plus structured spend governance under one platform.
Actively trading businesses
2.73m
At 30 June 2025 (ABS CABEE)
Mid-market pool (A$10m+)
~50,854
1.9% of total - your addressable universe
Xero AU subscribers
1.94m
At 31 March 2025 - integration expectations are high
Recommended GTM
Dual-motion
Sales-led (direct) + Partner-enabled for credibility
02
Australian market landscape
Summary
- Australia's business landscape is broad at the bottom and narrow at the top - 91.5% of businesses are under A$2m turnover
- The mid-market "step-up from Xero" opportunity is real but requires surgical targeting
- Cloud accounting penetration is massive - every prospect will have integration expectations
2.1
Market sizing
The Australian Government impact analysis (drawing on ABS data) puts ~50,854 businesses at A$10m+ turnover versus ~2,612,144 under A$10m at 30 June 2024 - implying ~1.9% of actively trading businesses sit in the mid-market band.
The ATO uses A$250m+ group turnover to define "large corporate groups" and estimates ~2,081 such groups - these are excluded as enterprise targets.
| Segment | Count | % of total | AccountsIQ relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under A$2m turnover | ~2,496,000 | 91.5% | Below ICP - SME ledger users |
| A$2m–A$10m turnover | ~116,000 | 4.3% | Growth prospects - watch list |
| A$10m–A$250m turnover | ~48,773 | 1.8% | Core ICP - target zone |
| A$250m+ (large corporate) | ~2,081 | 0.1% | Enterprise - excluded |
2.2
Vertical priorities
Verticals are ranked by 3-year SOM (ARR) under a base-case ramp of 60 customers by year 3.
ARPA assumptions (conservative): A$15k–A$23k per year subscription for mid-market multi-entity customers, based on AccountsIQ's confirmed pricing of £250–£1,000/month (~A$5,800–A$23,200/year at current GBP:AUD rates). This positions AccountsIQ as approximately 1/6th the cost of NetSuite (A$150k–A$300k+) for comparable multi-entity setups, and competitive with MYOB Acumatica (~A$21,600/yr for 10 users).
| Vertical | Base count | A$10m+ entities | Eligible | TAM (A$m/yr) | 3yr SOM (A$m) | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | 410,856 | 6,985 | 1,833 | 82.5 | 0.81 | 4.0 |
| NFPs & Charities | 63,667 | 6,367 | 1,783 | 80.2 | 0.63 | 3.0 |
| Health services | 166,000 | 2,536 | 476 | 21.4 | 0.36 | 3.0 |
| Supermarkets & grocery | 9,639 | 556 | 117 | 8.2 | 0.35 | 4.0 |
| Professional services | 280,750 | 4,290 | 858 | 34.3 | 0.32 | 3.0 |
| Fast food & takeaway | 26,824 | 256 | 58 | 3.5 | 0.24 | 2.5 |
| Fuel retailing | 3,915 | 500 | 105 | 7.4 | 0.21 | 4.0 |
Vertical motion mapping
graph LR
Construction["Construction"] -->|"Hybrid: direct + partner"| Phase1["Phase 1"]
Charities["NFPs & Charities"] -->|"Hybrid: partner-leaning"| Phase1
Health["Health Services"] -->|"Hybrid: direct-leaning"| Phase1
ProfServ["Professional Services"] -->|"Direct + advisory"| Phase2["Phase 2"]
Grocery["Grocery & Fuel"] -->|"Partner-enabled"| Phase2
Hospitality["Hospitality"] -->|"Opportunistic"| Phase2
Sources: ABS CABEE data (Jun 2025), interview findings (9.1-9.7), Journey analysis
2.3
Competitive landscape
"ERP step-up" refers to the category of platforms that businesses evaluate when they've outgrown entry-level accounting software (Xero, QuickBooks, MYOB Essentials) but don't need - or can't justify - a full enterprise ERP deployment. These are the systems that sit between stretched ledgers and heavyweight operational ERPs like SAP or Oracle E-Business Suite.
Key competitors in this space are organised around direct + channel delivery models. AccountsIQ is positioned as the mid-market consolidation platform that delivers reporting depth and multi-entity control at a fraction of ERP cost.
AccountsIQ is also cost-effective relative to mid-market ERP alternatives - subscription pricing sits well below Sage Intacct, NetSuite, and Acumatica, while offering multi-entity consolidation that Xero's add-on ecosystem simply cannot replicate.
At the upper ranges of Xero pricing (where businesses are paying A$500+/month plus multiple add-ons), AccountsIQ competes directly on total cost of ownership while delivering structurally superior finance controls. As competitors increasingly charge premium for AI capabilities, this cost advantage may widen further.
AccountsIQ - ERP step-up competitors
Oracle NetSuite
Cloud ERP
Strong partner ecosystem (RSM is 2025 ANZ Growth Partner) - high cost and complexity. A$150k–A$300k+/year for comparable multi-entity setups.
MYOB Acumatica
ANZ-localised ERP
Direct + reseller network with developer programme. A$180/user/month. Channel-locked via MYOB partners - closest structural comparison.
Microsoft Business Central
Platform ERP
Wins when IT platform alignment and the Microsoft stack dominate the buying decision - not a CFO-led alternative. 10–15% AU mid-market share.
Odoo
Open-source ERP
A$30–50/user with good features but expensive consultants. 10–15 salespeople attacking AU monthly. "The market collapses to Odoo or NetSuite" - Tyler Caskey.
Sage Intacct
Enterprise ERP
Strongest in financial services verticals. Full-suite ERP often viewed as overreach for mid-market multi-entity needs. Limited AU traction vs US/UK.
Xero + Spreadsheets
Status quo
1.94m AU subscribers - the "stretched ledger" that AccountsIQ replaces. Businesses stay longer than they should because it's familiar.
AccountsIQ - competitor market share (AU mid-market)
Estimated Australian mid-market shares for each key competitor, drawing from 2025 reports, survey data, and primary interview sources.
| Competitor | Est. mid-market share (AU) | Key sources & positioning |
|---|---|---|
| Xero + Apps | 30–40% | 17/24 survey respondents use Xero as primary finance system. "People stay on Xero longer than they should because it's familiar" - Matt Paff. The "stretched ledger" that AccountsIQ replaces. |
| MYOB Acumatica | ~25% | "Pretty much those two across Australia" - Tony Harcourt (re: NetSuite + Acumatica in ERP). Channel-locked via MYOB partners. A$180/user/month. Multi-ledger misalignment issues reported. |
| Microsoft Business Central | 10–15% | IT-led buying dynamic; Microsoft stack alignment. "Business Central wins when IT platform alignment and operational ERP breadth dominate" - not viewed as a compelling CFO-led alternative. AccountsIQ wins when the CFO owns the problem. |
| Odoo | 10–15% | A$30–50/user, good features but expensive consultants. 10–15 salespeople attacking AU monthly. Lower-cost mid-tier option. "The market collapses to Odoo or NetSuite in practice" - Tyler Caskey. |
| Oracle NetSuite | 8–12% | Typically A$150k–A$300k+/year for comparable multi-entity setups. "The market collapses to Odoo or NetSuite in practice" - Tyler Caskey. RSM is 2025 ANZ Growth Partner. Heavyweight ERP with strong partner ecosystem. |
| Sage Intacct | 5–8% | Strongest in financial services verticals. Limited AU traction vs US/UK markets. Full-suite ERP often viewed as overreach for mid-market multi-entity needs. |
AccountsIQ competitor share - AU mid-market finance platforms
pie title Estimated AU mid-market share
"Xero + Apps" : 35
"MYOB Acumatica" : 25
"Business Central" : 12
"Odoo" : 12
"Oracle NetSuite" : 10
"Sage Intacct" : 6
Sources: survey data (n=24), interviews (9.1-9.7), Value Adders, TheirStack, LinkedIn AU, ScaleSuite
AccountsIQ's target market sits in the "stretched Xero" transition zone - the 30–40% of mid-market organisations that have outgrown their entry-level ledger but don't need or want a full ERP rebuild. The structural gap between Xero and the ERP tier (Acumatica, NetSuite, Business Central) is where AccountsIQ competes. "The Australian market is already saturated between Xero and Business Central, NetSuite, Odoo and Acumatica" - Matt Paff. AccountsIQ wins on implementation speed, cost-balanced consolidation, and a CFO-oriented UX.
Competitor landscape analysis - sources: survey data (n=24), interviews (9.1–9.7), Value Adders, TheirStack, LinkedIn AU, ScaleSuite
Feature comparison - AccountsIQ vs ERP step-up competitors
| Feature | Acumatica | NetSuite | Xero | AccountsIQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation | Strong | ERP-grade | Weak | Automated |
| Cost / complexity | Med–High | High | Low | Balanced |
| Implementation | 12+ weeks | 6+ months | Weeks | 6 weeks |
| Reporting | Good | Deep | Limited | Multi-dimensional |
| AU localisation | Mature | Mature | Native | Priority |
AccountsIQ's core advantages are implementation speed and cost-balanced consolidation. AU localisation is a priority gap that must be resolved before launch.
Detailed competitor profiles - AccountsIQ
Each profile covers market positioning, content channels & tactics, partnership ecosystem, event presence, and how AccountsIQ compares.
ExpenseIn - spend management competitors (AU mid-market)
The Australian spend management market is anchored by SAP Concur at the top and manual/bank processes at the base.
ExpenseIn's opportunity sits in the fragmented middle tier where no single player dominates - the combined share of ProSpend, Weel, Expensify, OFX, and Archa (~30–48%) represents a contested zone with no clear winner and significant switching potential.
| Competitor | Est. mid-market share (AU) | Positioning |
|---|---|---|
| SAP Concur | 25–35% | Enterprise incumbent - highest tracked AU adoption (87 firms on TheirStack); often over-engineered for mid-market |
| Banks + Manual | 20–30% | Spreadsheets, bank card statements, paper receipts - the "do nothing" baseline that persists across mid-market |
| Airwallex | 12–18% | $0-base card platform with FX strength - low expense uptake despite strong brand relationships |
| ProSpend | 8–12% | AU-native expense + AP automation - MYOB app store presence; ~35–40% of customers on Acumatica |
| Weel | 8–12% | Strong approval workflows - positioned as "pretty |
| Expensify | 6–10% | US-origin; 24 AU firms tracked - declining mindshare relative to AU-native alternatives |
| OFX | 5–8% | Corporate card with AU FX focus - self-ranks #1 but narrow feature set beyond card management |
| Archa | 3–6% | Niche rewards-driven card - limited expense workflow capabilities |
ExpenseIn competitor share - AU mid-market spend management
pie title Estimated AU mid-market share
"SAP Concur" : 30
"Banks + Manual" : 25
"Airwallex" : 15
"ProSpend" : 10
"Weel" : 10
"Expensify" : 8
"OFX" : 6.5
"Archa" : 4.5
Sources: LinkedIn AU, TheirStack, OFX, ProSpend, ScaleSuite, ExpertMarketResearch
The spend management market's "messy middle" is ExpenseIn's sweet spot. SAP Concur is too heavy for most mid-market buyers, banks + manual is the status quo to displace, and the mid-tier players (Airwallex, ProSpend, Weel) each have exploitable weaknesses - Airwallex lacks deep expense workflow, ProSpend is ERP-tethered, and Weel is expensive with limited audit trail. ExpenseIn's integration with AccountsIQ creates a bundled value proposition none of these competitors can match.
Competitor landscape analysis - sources: LinkedIn AU, TheirStack, OFX, ProSpend, ScaleSuite, ExpertMarketResearch
Governance comparison - ExpenseIn vs spend management competitors
| Feature | Airwallex | Weel | ProSpend | Concur | ExpenseIn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance | Limited | Limited | Strong | Heavy | Pre-spend |
| Card issuance | Strong | Strong | Virtual cards | Weak | Instant |
| Pricing | FX-focused | FX-focused | Tiered plans | High | Per-active-user |
| Approval flows | Basic | Basic | Structured | Complex | Structured |
| Audit readiness | Basic | Basic | GST/FBT native | Enterprise | Workflow-driven |
| Scope | Cards + FX | Cards + approvals | Full spend/AP suite | Full enterprise | Expense governance |
| Setup complexity | Low | Low | High | Very high | Moderate |
Primary threats: Airwallex/Weel on brand dominance, ProSpend on full-suite AU-native positioning (800+ AU/NZ customers, MYOB app store, KFC/WWF).
ProSpend wins when buyers seek total spend/AP consolidation; ExpenseIn wins for focused expense governance and ERP-centric teams avoiding heavy configuration.
ExpenseIn competitive framing - three buyer frames
ExpenseIn competes across three distinct buyer frames, each requiring different differentiation:
vs Infrastructure players
Airwallex, Weel
Differentiate on governance depth and workflow sophistication. These players lead with card issuance and FX - governance is an afterthought.
vs Enterprise systems
SAP Concur
Differentiate on implementation simplicity and cost. Concur is over-engineered for mid-market - ExpenseIn delivers governance at mid-market scale and cost.
vs Lightweight apps
Expensify, manual tools
Differentiate on audit visibility and policy automation. Lightweight apps lack the governance depth that finance teams under audit pressure require.
Detailed competitor profiles - ExpenseIn
Each profile covers market positioning, content channels & tactics, partnership ecosystem, event presence, and how ExpenseIn compares.
03
ICP analysis
Summary
- AccountsIQ targets A$10m–A$250m turnover businesses with 3–30 entities needing consolidation
- Primary buyers: CFO, Financial Controller - with adviser/implementer influence at validation stage
- ExpenseIn wedges into the same verticals via spend governance for distributed teams
3.1
AccountsIQ ICP filters
Turnover
A$10m–A$250m
Mid-market band - A$10m is a widely used threshold in Australian policy and tax framing (ATO, ABS, Government impact analyses) and appears in multiple official contexts
Employees
20–500
Proxy for finance team maturity and entity complexity
Entity complexity
3–30 entities
Legal entities or operating units requiring consolidation
System fit
Finance-first
Consolidation/reporting priority - not operational ERP replacement
Enterprise exclusion guardrail: businesses above A$250m group turnover are treated as more likely to require enterprise ERP. The ATO estimates ~2,081 large corporate groups at this threshold.
3.2
ExpenseIn vertical wedges
ExpenseIn's positioning is built around spend governance. Each vertical has a specific "wedge problem" that creates urgency:
Problem: Site/project spend leaks through decentralised purchasing, weak approvals, and inconsistent codification - creating margin risk and delayed close.
Buying triggers: Margin squeeze, higher insolvency risk, audit findings, project cost overruns.
Primary buyers: CFO, Finance Manager, Commercial Manager, Project Controls.
Proof asset needed: "Project spend control pack" - workflow templates by cost code, audit-trail examples, month-end acceleration case study.
Problem: Restricted funds and program budgets are undermined when spend controls and evidence trails are inconsistent across teams.
Buying triggers: Board/audit committee pressure, grant acquittals, governance uplift, finance team capacity strain.
Primary buyers: CFO, Head of Finance, Grants/Programs Finance lead, COO.
Proof asset needed: "Audit-ready charity spend" bundle - policy templates, delegated authority matrix, sample acquittal pack.
Problem: High-volume operational spend needs stronger policy enforcement and traceability to prevent compliance and budget blowouts.
Buying triggers: Compliance reviews, service line expansion, decentralised purchasing, fraud controls.
Primary buyers: CFO, Finance Ops, Procurement, Practice/Operations Manager.
Proof asset needed: "Clinical governance spend controls" story - incident reduction, approval SLAs, close-time reduction.
3.3
Buyer journey stages
| Stage | Desired buyer outcome | Decision makers | Must be true to progress |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem recognition | "Our close / consolidation is structurally broken" | CFO, Financial Controller | A clear "breakpoint" narrative is accepted |
| Diagnosis | Quantified cost of spreadsheet consolidation + risk | CFO, FC, sometimes COO | Baseline close time, rework, and risk are measured |
| Solution fit | "AccountsIQ fits without ERP overreach" | CFO/FC + IT/ops | Integration requirements mapped; migration approach trusted |
| Validation | "This is safe" | CFO + adviser/implementer | Proof assets + implementation plan are credible |
| Commit | Purchase + implementation plan approved | CFO, FC, procurement | Commercial terms + delivery plan agreed |
3.4
Adoption barriers
Both products face distinct adoption barriers that must be addressed in positioning and sales enablement.
AccountsIQ barriers
- Messy GL structures - inconsistent chart-of-accounts across entities makes migration complex
- Dimension inconsistency - multi-dimensional reporting requires clean taxonomy before migration
- Implementation partner capability - AU has no trained partners yet; migration quality is the gating factor
- Integration continuity - businesses fear losing Xero ecosystem connections during switchover
AccountsIQ must foreground implementation structure as part of its value proposition - the same platform can succeed or fail depending on ledger mapping discipline.
ExpenseIn barriers
- Infrastructure-led competitors - card platforms (Airwallex, Weel) have stronger AU brand recognition
- Perception as "just another expense app" - commoditised category makes differentiation critical
- Low urgency in smaller teams - spend governance pain isn't acute until headcount or audit pressure grows
Differentiation must centre on governance depth - not feature parity with card issuers.
04
AccountsIQ GTM strategy
Summary
- Two coordinated channels: Sales-led (Direct) as primary pipeline engine + Partner-enabled for credibility and implementation
- Direct owns: category creation, target account identification, CFO conversion, deal control
- Partners accelerate: credibility, implementation capacity, migration confidence, and vertical proof
- Non-negotiable coordination principle: Direct-originated pipeline + Partner-assisted conversion + Partner-enabled delivery
Strategy framework
WHO you want to target
- Multi-entity, finance-led organisations (A$10m-A$250m turnover, 3-30 entities)
- Outgrowing Xero but not needing operational ERP
- Transaction volume exceeding ~2,000/month
- Reporting constrained by Xero's two tracking categories
- Managing consolidation manually via spreadsheets
- Priority verticals: construction, NFPs, health services
WHAT you want your message to be
- Consolidation, control, and reporting depth - at a fraction of ERP cost and complexity
- Entity consolidation: automated group reporting across multiple entities
- App stack consolidation: native functionality replacing Dext, ApprovalMax, Sift
WHERE you can find them
- Partners: accounting firms, fractional/outsourced CFOs, implementation consultants
- LinkedIn: CFO, Head of Finance, Financial Controller roles
- Industry channels: XU Magazine, Accountants Daily, CFO peer networks
- Outbound: targeted prospects via Consolidation Diagnostic qualification
HOW you're going to do it
- Sales-led pipeline + partner-enabled credibility and delivery
- Target new entities and projects (not rip-and-replace)
- 8-week implementation: 4 weeks setup + 4 weeks parallel close
- Consolidation Diagnostic Assessment as the SDR entry point
- Direct acquisition: paid social (LinkedIn), retargeting, Google Ads on competitor terms (NetSuite alternatives, MYOB migration), industry events
- Sequence: partner credibility first, founder authority second, education third, direct acquisition and paid media in parallel
4.1
Dual-motion model
Sales-led + partner-enabled GTM coordination
Sales-Led (Direct)
Pipeline origination
60–70% of Year 1 deals
Partner-Enabled
Credibility + vertical proof
40%+ influenced by Q4
Target Account Pipeline
Direct-originated + partner-influenced deals combined
Deal Conversion
De-risk migration · confirm fit · build confidence
Partner
assists
assists
Closed-Won
Subscription + implementation fee agreed
Implementation & Go-Live
8-week framework: 4 wks setup + 4 wks parallel close
Partner
delivers
delivers
Source: Journey analysis based on interview findings and market validation
| Motion | Primary role | Year 1 focus | "Stop doing" guardrails |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sales-led | Create and convert demand in the "stretched Xero + spreadsheets" transition zone | High-fit multi-entity customers across priority verticals; local case studies to build credibility | Don't broaden ICP to chase volume; don't run paid scale before proof |
| Partner-enabled | Reduce switching risk; provide implementation confidence; co-sell into vertical trust networks | Accredited implementers + anchor advisory endorsers; partner-influenced share growing through year | Don't outsource demand generation; don't allow partners to "own the customer" without joint governance |
4.2
Sales-led playbook
Three repeatable, vertically-packaged sales plays:
Play A
Multi-Entity Finance Diagnostic
15–20 min diagnostic for finance leaders in the A$10m–A$50m band. "We'll benchmark your close time, consolidation friction, intercompany overhead, and entity visibility gaps."
Play B
"No-ERP Overreach" Proof
Target CFOs who've seen ERP project risk. Show implementation plan, partner options, timeline - not a features demo.
Play C
Lighthouse Conversion
2–3 "high-signal" orgs per priority vertical. Pilot package with implementation support and case study commitments.
Expected conversion assumptions: Target accounts → first meeting: 2–4% | Meeting → SQL: 40% | SQL → close: 30% | Sales cycle: 3–6 months (6–9 for high complexity).
4.3
Partner-enabled motion
Four partner types to recruit, each mapped to specific verticals and value:
| Partner type | Their value | Best vertical fit | What you must provide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accounting firms (mid-tier + specialist) | Influence + credibility; identify breakpoints early | Charities, professional services, construction | Co-sell rules; migration kit; case studies |
| Outsourced CFO firms | Trigger recognition; CFO peer influence | Construction, professional services, health | "CFO pack": ROI model, board reporting examples |
| Systems integrators | Delivery capacity; integration confidence | Construction, health, complex groups | Sandboxes; implementation playbooks; escalation SLAs |
| Vertical ISVs | Integration credibility; unlocks vertical wedges | Construction, charities, health | Integration sandbox; API docs; joint reference stories |
Commercial models: Referral fee (10–15% first-year ARR) | Implementation margin (partner keeps fees) | Reseller margin (15–25% tiered) | Co-marketing fund tied to activities.
Cin7 + AccountsIQ - strategic partnership deep-dive
Cin7 is the highest-priority ISV partner for AccountsIQ's Australia entry. Multiple interview sources independently identified the same dynamic: Cin7's customer base is being lost to NetSuite - not because Cin7 fails, but because Xero breaks underneath it.
Cin7's pain point
Xero inventory scaling fails
High-volume inventory clients (100+ invoices/day) outgrow Xero's consolidation limits and need a stronger finance backend. Cin7 loses them to full NetSuite migrations.
Xero + Cin7 customers = prime ICP
2,000+ AU customers
AccountsIQ replaces the Xero layer without forcing clients off Cin7 - preventing full NetSuite migration and preserving Cin7's revenue.
Micro-campaign
"Inventory + Consolidation Bundle"
Joint pitch to Cin7's AU customer base: revenue share model, co-marketing (webinars/case studies), positioned as "Cin7 + AccountsIQ = Xero escape".
05
Market sizing & rollout timeline
Summary
- ARPA modelling (conservative): A$15k–A$23k/year subscription for mid-market multi-entity customers, based on confirmed AccountsIQ pricing of £250–£1,000/month
- Market sizing assumes a base-case ramp of 60 customers by year 3, constrained by execution capacity (partners + direct team)
- 12-month rollout from foundation (Mar) through vertical pilots to scale readiness (Feb)
5.1
ARPA & market sizing assumptions
The following assumptions underpin the vertical sizing model and inform the commercial opportunity for AccountsIQ in Australia. These are research-derived inputs - not prescriptive targets.
Subscription ARPA (base)
A$15–23k/yr
Conservative estimate based on confirmed AccountsIQ pricing (£250–£1,000/month)
High-compliance ARPA
~A$70k/yr
Grocery/fuel groups with many cardholders and additional modules
First-year customer value
A$31–39k
Subscription (A$15–23k) + one-time implementation/migration services (~A$16k)
Sizing model ramp
60 by yr 3
Base-case customer ramp used for 3-year SOM modelling, constrained by execution capacity
Pricing position
~1/6th of NetSuite
At A$15k–A$23k/yr, significantly undercuts NetSuite (A$150k–A$300k+) for comparable multi-entity setups
vs Xero + ecosystem
Meaningfully above
Higher than stretched Xero + add-ons, but justified by real multi-entity consolidation that Xero cannot deliver
Partner channel assumption
3–5 in Year 1
Accredited implementation partners needed to de-risk migrations and build local credibility
Sales cycle (est.)
3–6 months
Based on mid-market buying dynamics; ~25% win rate on qualified opportunities (assumption)
5.2
12-month rollout
AccountsIQ Australia GTM roadmap (12 months)
MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFeb
Foundation
Vertical packaging + ICP lists
Xero-first migration kit (v1)
Integration map + sandbox
Direct Motion
Diagnostic-led outbound
Founder authority + webinars
Partner Build
Recruit 3 anchor implementers
Partner accreditation (v1 → v2)
Co-sell cadence + SLAs live
Vertical Pilots
Construction lighthouse
Charity/NFP lighthouse
Health/services lighthouse
Scale Readiness
Publish case studies + partner kits
Paid test (post-proof only)
Source: Journey analysis - recommended rollout based on interview findings and market validation
05b
ExpenseIn GTM strategy
Summary
- ExpenseIn enters Australia as the governance layer for growing finance teams - not another expense app or card issuer
- Advisory-led credibility is the recommended entry model - outsourced CFO firms, NFP finance specialists, and audit consultants who encounter governance gaps
- 12-month rollout from foundation (Mar) through advisory network build and lighthouse pilots to scale readiness (Feb)
- Compete on governance maturity (pre-spend control, policy enforcement, audit readiness) - not card infrastructure
5b.1
Market entry thesis
ExpenseIn will not compete in Australia as another expense management application or corporate card provider. Australia's card infrastructure is mature - card issuance is frictionless and visibility exists. What is inconsistent is governance.
The primary competitive dynamic is not feature comparison. It is: reactive spend management vs structured pre-spend control.
The problem
Spend is frequently reviewed after it occurs. Policy enforcement relies on manual oversight. Approval hierarchies are inconsistent. Audit readiness is uneven.
ExpenseIn's opportunity
Strengthen pre-spend governance, enforce policy automatically, and reduce finance admin burden - at a fraction of enterprise system complexity.
Governance gap - what the research tells us
| Current state (survey, n=25) | Target state with ExpenseIn | Metric |
|---|---|---|
| Only 24% control spend before it happens | 80% pre-spend approvals | 24% → 80% |
| 68% only see spend post-transaction | Real-time pre-spend visibility | 68% → <20% reactive |
| Receipt chasing is biggest admin pain | Automated receipt capture and matching | ≥30% admin time reduction |
| 52% lack confidence policies are followed | Structured enforcement via approval workflows | Policy breach elimination |
5b.2
Ideal customer profile & channel model
The following assumptions define the ideal customer profile and recommended channel model for ExpenseIn's Australian entry. These are research-derived inputs based on survey data (n=25) and interview findings.
Cardholder sweet spot
10–200
Organisations with distributed spenders across audit-sensitive verticals
Recommended channel
Advisory-led
Outsourced CFO firms, NFP finance specialists, and audit consultants who encounter governance gaps
Strategic positioning
Governance authority
"Pre-spend governance layer" - compete on policy enforcement and audit readiness, not card infrastructure
Bundle opportunity
AIQ cross-sell
Finance consolidation + structured spend governance under one platform - no competitor can match this bundled proposition
5b.3
Target profile
ExpenseIn will target governance-sensitive finance teams instead of organisations shopping for new card infrastructure.
| Dimension | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Cardholders | 10–200 |
| Structure | Multi-entity or multi-division |
| Finance team | Lean (1–5 staff) |
| Existing infrastructure | Airwallex, Weel, bank-issued cards |
| Visibility | Reactive (finance sees spend after submission) |
| Compliance | Increasing audit or compliance pressure |
High-fit segments: Professional services groups, healthcare, franchise networks, NFPs/NGOs, PE-backed portfolio businesses.
Trigger events: Audit findings, rapid headcount growth, increased card issuance, finance team capacity strain, newly appointed CFO.
5b.4
Messaging & channels
- •Control spend before it happens - Move from reactive reimbursement to structured pre-approval.
- •Enforce policy automatically - Embed approval hierarchies and spend rules into workflows.
- •Reduce admin & audit risk - Minimise policy breaches, reduce receipt chasing, strengthen audit trails.
Narrative themes: "Cards are easy. Control is hard." - "Visibility after submission is not governance." - "The hidden cost of unmanaged card sprawl."
Channels: Advisory & outsourced CFO networks (primary), LinkedIn CFO/finance leaders, XU Magazine, Accountants Daily, governance-focused webinars, targeted outbound to 10–200 cardholder organisations.
5b.5
Execution model
Execution follows a governance-led activation model across five coordinated demand layers:
| Layer | Timing | Activities |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory-led credibility | Months 0–6 | Secure 3–5 advisory partnerships; position as governance layer within partner client stacks |
| Founder-led social authority | Ongoing | Weekly LinkedIn on governance maturity; commentary on policy enforcement gaps; case studies on reduced admin |
| Governance education | Month 3+ | Webinars: "Pre-Spend Governance in a Card-First World", "How Finance Teams Reduce Admin by 30%"; CFO roundtables |
| Paid media & SDR | Post-validation | XU Magazine, Accountants Daily; diagnostic-led SDR: "Spend Governance Health Check" |
| Direct acquisition | Month 3+ | Paid social (LinkedIn, Meta) targeting CFO/finance roles; retargeting site visitors and webinar attendees; Google Ads on competitor terms (SAP Concur alternatives, Airwallex expense management, Weel vs); industry events and CFO roundtable sponsorships |
Positioning as the governance layer - not another expense tool - gives ExpenseIn a distinct entry point in the Australian market.
5b.6
12-month rollout
ExpenseIn Australia governance-led GTM (12 months)
MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecJanFeb
Foundation
Governance messaging framework
ROI calculator + policy templates
ICP list build + advisory mapping
Advisory Network
Recruit 3–5 advisory partners
Partner enablement + referral SLAs
Co-marketing: governance content
Direct Motion
Founder-led social authority
Governance health check outbound
Webinars + CFO roundtables
Lighthouse Pilots
NFP/charity pilot
Professional services pilot
Healthcare / franchise pilot
Scale Readiness
Publish governance case studies
AccountsIQ cross-sell activation
Paid test (post-proof only)
Source: Journey analysis - recommended rollout based on interview findings and market validation
06
Key positioning & messaging
Summary
- AccountsIQ owns the category: finance-first consolidation without ERP disruption
- ExpenseIn owns the category: governance-first spend control
- SDR qualification script, outreach messaging, and "what not to say" guardrails included below
6.1
AccountsIQ positioning
The category AIQ owns
Finance-first consolidation without ERP disruption
Do not compete on feature comparison. Own the problem category - the structural gap between stretched Xero and heavyweight ERP.
Avoid positioning as
A generic mid-market ledger or ERP replacement
AccountsIQ is the solution for organisations that don't need ERP - not a cheaper version of one.
Core value propositions:
Close faster
Measurable close-time reduction (≥30%) through automated consolidation and structured reporting. One-click consolidation replaces manual Excel rollups and intercompany elimination.
Dual consolidation
Entity consolidation - automated group reporting, intercompany control, structured rollups. App stack consolidation - three apps in a purchase workflow (Xero + Dext + ApprovalMax) replaced by one.
Avoid ERP overreach
Reporting depth and financial control at mid-market cost - not enterprise ERP complexity, price, or implementation timelines. Many organisations escalate to ERP prematurely - AccountsIQ prevents that.
Supported implementation
Structured 8-week migration (4 weeks setup + 4 weeks parallel close). Dedicated specialists, defined milestones, verified data before go-live. Not self-serve, not unmanaged.
Narrative themes for content and authority:
- When does Xero reach its structural limit? (Transaction volume and tracking category ceilings)
- The hidden cost of spreadsheet consolidation (Manual rollups, reconciliation errors, close-time drag)
- Why organisations escalate to ERP prematurely (And what they should do instead)
- The structural gap between Xero and NetSuite (Where AccountsIQ sits and why)
- Three apps replaced by one: the real cost of your Xero app stack (Dext + ApprovalMax + Sift → AccountsIQ)
- Finance transformation that doesn't break what already works (Close faster, skip the ERP overhead)
What NOT to say:
Do not lead with revenue thresholds. Revenue is an imprecise proxy. A $2m charity may need AccountsIQ; a $200m PE firm may not. Complexity and transaction volume are the real triggers.
Do not use generic "outgrowing Xero" messaging. Businesses will pay more for Xero before they'll replatform. Messaging must be structurally specific - cite tracking category limits, transaction volume ceilings, consolidation strain.
Do not say "controlled implementation." Use "supported implementation" - hands-on guidance without implying the customer loses agency.
Do not use "finance-first" without defining it. If it comes up: "built for finance teams - the CFO owns the problem and the platform, not the IT department."
6.2
SDR qualification & outreach
The SDR entry point is a 15–20 minute Consolidation Diagnostic Assessment, offered to prospects who meet qualifying criteria. The qualification sequence follows validated trigger hierarchy:
| # | Question | Breakpoint / trigger |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "How many transactions are you processing per month?" | ~2,000+/month |
| 2 | "How many ways do you need to categorise each transaction?" | Xero limit: 2 tracking categories; AIQ: 6 dimensions |
| 3 | "How many legal entities or operating units do you manage?" | Multi-entity is the primary qualifier |
| 4 | "Do you need consolidated group reporting, or run entities independently?" | Not every multi-entity business wants consolidation |
| 5 | "How many separate apps are you running alongside your ledger?" | Dext, approval tools, reporting add-ons, dashboards |
| 6 | "Do you need dedicated inventory or stock control?" | If yes: integration partner path (Cin7, Katana), not native AIQ |
| 7 | "How long does your month-end close take?" | Benchmark: >8 business days = consolidation strain |
Revenue should NOT be a qualification question. Use as a background sizing indicator only.
SDR outreach messaging:
Opening
"We're speaking with multi-entity finance teams whose close is slowing due to consolidation complexity. Are you seeing similar pressure?"
Offer
Consolidation Diagnostic Assessment - 15–20 minutes, no commitment. Leads with the prospect's problem (consolidation strain, slow close) - not the product.
6.3
ExpenseIn positioning
The category ExpenseIn owns
Pre-spend governance for growing finance teams
Australia has mature card infrastructure (Airwallex, Weel). What it lacks is consistent governance and workflow control.
Avoid positioning as
A card issuer or FX competitor
Core value propositions:
Control spend before it happens
Move from reactive reimbursement to structured pre-approval. Only 24% of surveyed organisations enforce pre-spend controls today.
Enforce policy automatically
Embed approval hierarchies and spend rules into workflows instead of relying on manual oversight.
Reduce admin and audit risk
Minimise policy breaches, reduce receipt chasing (target: ≥30% reduction in admin hours), and strengthen audit trails.
Narrative themes:
- Cards are easy. Control is hard.
- Visibility after submission is not governance.
- The hidden cost of unmanaged card sprawl.
- Pre-spend approval vs post-spend reconciliation.
- Audit readiness at mid-market cost.
6.4
Competitive frames
AccountsIQ competitive frames
AccountsIQ competes within two buyer frames:
Frame 1: Xero + ecosystem extensions
Their strength: Familiarity, low cost, ecosystem breadth, user experience
Their weakness: Consolidation friction, spreadsheet reliance, transaction volume limitations, growing app stack fragmentation
Frame 2: ERP escalation (NetSuite / BC / Acumatica)
Their strength: Operational depth
Their weakness: Implementation burden, cost, complexity
AccountsIQ's clearest differentiation:
- Entity consolidation - automated group reporting, intercompany control, structured group visibility without manual consolidation
- App stack consolidation - native functionality that replaces multiple Xero ecosystem add-ons
- Control at mid-market scale - structured finance capability that doesn't demand an ERP-grade implementation
- Greater reporting depth - multi-dimensional reporting and a reporting-led data architecture
- Familiar usability - Xero-like interface with ERP-level finance output
ExpenseIn competitive frames
ExpenseIn competes against three categories:
Card infrastructure providers
Airwallex, Weel - strong on issuance and FX, weak on governance and policy enforcement
Enterprise spend systems
SAP Concur - over-engineered for mid-market, high cost, complex implementation
Lightweight expense tools
Expensify, basic bank tools - limited governance depth, no structured approval workflows
ExpenseIn's edge is governance sophistication at mid-market scale and cost.
07
Key risks & mitigation
Summary
- Five material risks identified across both products - each with specific mitigation strategies
- Xero ecosystem inertia and brand recognition gap are the most significant barriers to entry
7.1
Risk mitigation framework
| Risk | Mitigation | Key sources |
|---|---|---|
| Xero ecosystem inertia - mid-market businesses remain locked into Xero due to familiarity, 1,000+ app ecosystem, and perceived migration risk | Integration continuity proof and migration kits | Interview: Tony Harcourt - "Broad 'Xero outgrow' messaging is insufficient." Survey: 17/24 respondents currently use Xero. |
| ERP sunk-cost bias - businesses that have invested in ERP are reluctant to change, even when current solution underperforms | Target new projects instead of rip-and-replace; position as an alternative to premature ERP escalation | Interview: Tony Harcourt - "$500,000 project… ended up being a general ledger with 120 departments." |
| Implementation fear - finance teams fear disruption and data loss during platform migration | Structured onboarding frameworks; parallel month-end close; phased migration approach | Interview: Matt Paff - "No one wants to be the person who pushed an ERP change too early." |
| Brand recognition gap - AccountsIQ has no brand presence in Australia; buyers default to known platforms | Partner-led endorsement; founder authority building; lighthouse customer proof | Interview: Matt Paff - "The Australian market is already saturated between Xero and Business Central, NetSuite, Odoo and Acumatica." |
| ExpenseIn commoditisation - expense management is crowded with mobile-first/card-led platforms competing on price and simplicity | Lead with compliance, control, and structured workflows instead of competing on basic usability features | Interview: Tyler Caskey - "Integrated expense management with card functionality was viewed as a meaningful advantage." |
| Low urgency in smaller teams - governance pain is not acute until headcount or audit pressure grows | Target audit-sensitive segments first (NFPs, healthcare, PE-backed); use "governance maturity" framing to create urgency | Survey: only 24% of respondents control spend before it happens; 68% operate reactively. |
| No local proof at launch - no AU-specific case studies or reference customers | Import 2–3 UK/EU success stories by Week 6; secure AU lighthouse pilots with explicit outcome publishing agreements | Slide deck: "Import 2–3 success stories Week 6" identified as a critical Year 1 priority. |
08
Recommendations
Summary
- Gating prerequisite: Australian tax localisation (GST, BAS, STP2, Payday Super) must be resolved before any GTM activity has value
- AccountsIQ: six 90-day actions to operationalise the sales-led and partner-enabled GTM + four non-optional proof assets
- ExpenseIn: six 90-day actions to establish governance positioning + four proof assets for advisory-led distribution
- Partner inventory by vertical: recommended partner types, named integration partners, and channel activation sequence
8.1
Gating prerequisite - AU tax localisation
Before anything else: Australian tax compliance is non-negotiable. Every recommendation that follows is contingent on compliance being solved first. If these requirements are not met, nothing else in this report matters.
GST recording
Native, not configurable
The system must natively record GST in accordance with Australian regulations from launch - not as a user-configurable function. 95% of survey respondents (n=24) rated "Australian tax and GST handling" as a non-negotiable requirement.
ATO-compliant filing
Direct or structured export
Must support ATO-compliant filing - either through direct submission (equivalent to HMRC MTD for VAT) or structured export formats designed for ATO upload. BAS accuracy and timeliness are baseline requirements in the Australian context.
BAS/GST reporting at scale
Must not break
Xero's BAS/GST reports crash at high transaction volumes - this is a validated migration trigger. AccountsIQ must handle 2,000+ transactions/month without degradation. "You just physically can't run a GST report" - Lawrence Petruzzelli.
STP2 & Payday Super
Via integration partner
Payroll compliance (STP2, Payday Super, multi-state payroll tax) must be covered through an integration partner (Employment Hero / KeyPay) from day one. Payroll journal integration needs to "just work" - not be native, but reliable.
Bank feeds
AU bank connectivity
"If you've got good bank feeds, accountants can get in there and do reviews and amendments" - essential for adoption. ATO connection for STP and BAS integration must work from day one. Strategy for AU banking data feeds required.
GST on expenses
ExpenseIn: FBT & GST
ExpenseIn must handle GST-aligned expense categorisation and FBT (Fringe Benefits Tax) reporting natively. 69% of expense survey respondents rated "GST handling aligned with AU tax rules" as a must-have. ProSpend already offers GST/FBT native.
Data sovereignty
AU hosting stance
40% of survey respondents require AU-based support; data residency expectations are increasing. A clear stance on AU data hosting - even if not immediately local - is needed for credibility in regulated verticals (health, NFP, government-adjacent).
Sequencing
Compliance → then GTM
Australian tax localisation must be finalised first - GST/BAS reporting clarity, bank feed strategy, and payroll journal integration guidance. Without this, no other activity has value. This is the gating prerequisite.
"Acumatica is a piece ofshit. It is overpriced and it doesn't do superannuation or Australian GST out of the box." - Tony Harcourt. This is the risk for any platform entering without native AU compliance. The Australian finance market is already cautious of overseas platforms.
Interview finding - the penalty for incomplete localisation is immediate credibility loss
8.2
AccountsIQ - 90-day actions
- Finalise vertical packaging for construction, charities, health: ICP filters, talk tracks, integration must-haves, and pilot offer structure.
- Build Xero-first migration kit v1 and a strict internal scoping method (protects delivery credibility).
- Recruit 3 anchor implementers with clear onboarding criteria:
- Sales-ready - the partner can articulate AccountsIQ's multi-entity value vs stretched Xero, position entity-tier pricing, and run the diagnostic independently.
- Delivery-ready - the partner can scope and execute a Xero-to-AccountsIQ migration including chart-of-accounts mapping across entities, intercompany configuration, consolidated reporting setup, and centralised AP workflows.
- Escalation SLAs - define when a complex integration or multi-ledger migration gets routed to AccountsIQ's solutions team instead of staying with the partner alone.
- Launch the Multi-Entity Finance Diagnostic as the single front-door offer for direct motion - covering consolidated reporting, entity control and visibility, intercompany automations, and centralised AP; instrument it in CRM for weekly stage conversion measurement.
- Secure two lighthouse pilots (ideally construction + charity) with explicit agreement to publish outcomes.
- Publish the first AU-specific proof pack (even pre-case study): migration approach, timeline, integration stance, and what "go-live success" looks like.
8.3
ExpenseIn - 90-day actions
- Build governance messaging framework - position ExpenseIn as the "pre-spend governance layer" (not another expense app). Core narratives: "Cards are easy. Control is hard." and "Visibility after submission is not governance."
- Ship the Spend Governance Health Check - a diagnostic tool that benchmarks a prospect's governance maturity across five dimensions: approval workflows, policy enforcement, real-time visibility, receipt capture, and audit readiness. Use as the single front-door offer.
- Recruit 3–5 advisory partners - outsourced CFO firms, NFP finance specialists, and audit consultants who encounter governance gaps in their client base. Define referral criteria and onboarding pack.
- Secure two lighthouse pilots - target NFP/charity and professional services verticals with 10–200 cardholders. Pilot success = measurable reduction in policy breaches and finance admin time within 10 weeks.
- Build the ROI calculator and policy template library - pre-built spend policy templates by vertical (NFP, healthcare, professional services) and a "before/after" calculator quantifying admin hours saved and policy breaches avoided.
- Launch founder-led social authority - weekly LinkedIn content on governance maturity, commentary on Airwallex/Weel card proliferation, and "what governance-ready actually means" thought leadership.
8.4
AccountsIQ - proof assets
These assets are non-optional for Australia - they compress "validation" time in the buyer journey:
Asset 1
Xero-first Migration Kit
Chart-of-accounts mapping templates, consolidation patterns, cutover checklist, sample project plan
Asset 2
Close-time ROI Model
Diagnostic worksheet + "before/after" dashboard template for CFO and board reporting
Asset 3
Integration Coverage Map
"Must-have" integrations by vertical with gap pathway (workarounds + roadmap transparency)
Asset 4
AU Compliance Briefing
BAS/GST reporting approach, audit trail expectations, data retention stance (one-pager)
8.5
ExpenseIn - proof assets
ExpenseIn requires a distinct set of proof assets - buyers need to see governance outcomes, not feature comparisons:
Asset 1
Spend Governance Health Check
Diagnostic scoring tool: approval workflows, policy enforcement, real-time visibility, receipt capture, audit readiness - benchmarked against governance maturity framework
Asset 2
Admin Time ROI Calculator
Input cardholder count + current process → output: hours saved, policy breach reduction, finance capacity recovered per month
Asset 3
Vertical Policy Template Library
Pre-built spend policies for NFP, healthcare, professional services, and franchise networks - deployable from Day 1
Asset 4
Governance Case Study Pack
"Before/after" governance transformation stories - policy breaches eliminated, pre-spend approval rates, finance admin hours reduced
8.6
GTM partner inventory by vertical
The table below maps each priority vertical to its recommended GTM motion, the partner types to prioritise, and the proof assets required before partner activation. This is the operational bridge between strategy and execution.
AccountsIQ - vertical × partner matrix
| Vertical | Preferred motion | Partner types to prioritise | Required proof assets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction | Hybrid (direct-led + partner-enabled) | SIs/implementers; construction-specialist accounting firms; vertical ISVs (e.g. SimPro) | Project accounting mapping; entity consolidation pattern library; integration coverage map |
| NFPs & Charities | Hybrid (partner-leaning) | Accounting firms specialising in NFP; outsourced CFO firms; governance advisers | "Audit-ready" pack; delegated authority template; acquittal evidence workflow |
| Health Services | Hybrid (direct-leaning) | SIs; health-focused advisers; practice ops ISVs | Compliance/audit trail examples; role-based approvals; integration map |
| Professional Services | Direct-led + advisory | Accounting firms; outsourced CFO firms | Multi-entity reporting demos; "billable cost" and recharge patterns |
| Multi-site Grocery & Fuel | Partner-enabled (Phase 2) | SIs; retail consultants; payments/card ecosystem partners | Multi-site controls pack; exception governance; integration and data volume confidence |
| Hospitality Chains | Opportunistic (Phase 2) | Franchise advisers; accounting firms | Multi-entity rollout pack; tight onboarding/offboarding controls |
Partner type definitions & activation criteria
| Partner type | Their value to AccountsIQ | Best vertical fit | What you must provide them |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accounting firms (mid-tier + specialist) | Influence + credibility; identify breakpoints early in client relationships | Charities, professional services, construction | Co-sell rules; migration kit; case studies; simple referral pathway |
| Outsourced CFO firms | Trigger recognition; CFO peer influence; operate across multiple client entities | Construction, professional services, health | "CFO pack": ROI model, board reporting examples, diagnostic tool |
| Systems integrators / implementation consultancies | Delivery capacity; integration confidence; migration execution | Construction, health, complex groups | Sandboxes; implementation playbooks; escalation SLAs; accreditation program |
| Vertical ISVs | Integration credibility; unlocks vertical wedges; existing customer bases | Construction (SimPro), inventory (Cin7), e-commerce (A2X/Shopify) | Integration sandbox; API docs; joint reference stories; revenue share model |
Priority technology & integration partners
These integrations are required for Australian market credibility. Each must be tested and documented before GTM launch.
| Partner / integration | Category | Why critical for AU | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cin7 | Inventory / vertical ISV | Highest-priority ISV partner - 2,000+ AU customers on Xero+Cin7 losing clients to NetSuite because Xero breaks. AccountsIQ replaces the Xero layer. Joint "Inventory + Consolidation Bundle" campaign. | Day 1 |
| Employment Hero / KeyPay | Payroll integration | Required for payroll compliance - STP2 and Payday Super. "Just needs to be a journal" that pushes cleanly. Must work reliably from day one. | Day 1 |
| SISS Data Services | AU bank feeds (open banking) | Powers Australian bank feeds via open banking infrastructure. "If you've got good bank feeds, accountants can get in there and do reviews" - essential for adoption. Non-negotiable for AU market credibility. | Day 1 |
| Pinch Payments | AU payments | Australian-native payment gateway for direct debit and card payments. Glass Box solution recommended by interview sources. Covers AU-specific payment rails that Stripe alone may not fully address. | Day 1 |
| SimPro | Construction ISV | Construction vertical wedge - job costing + project accounting integration for the highest-TAM vertical | Phase 1 |
| Tanda | Rostering & payroll | AU-native workforce management and rostering platform. Strong presence in hospitality, health services, and construction - aligns with target verticals. Payroll data flows into AccountsIQ via journal integration. | Phase 1 |
| A2X | E-commerce reconciliation | Bridges Shopify/Amazon settlement reconciliation - e-commerce clients doing $50M+ can work on a capable ledger if platform pushes summary line items | Phase 1 |
| Shopify | E-commerce platform | Combined with A2X, enables "Cin7 + Shopify + AccountsIQ" stack - replacing "Cin7 + Shopify + Xero" where Xero breaks at scale | Phase 1 |
| Expense card platforms | Spend management integration | Weel, Airwallex, and OFX are established AU spend management and payments platforms. If AccountsIQ opts not to launch ExpenseIn in Australia, integrating with these players could be a faster route - they already have market presence, card infrastructure, and mid-market customers who need a better ledger. They become referral sources rather than competitors. | Phase 1 |
| Stripe | Payments | Payment reconciliation for SaaS / e-commerce verticals - existing Xero ecosystem connector | Phase 2 |
| Deputy (note) | Rostering & workforce | Strong AU rostering product but now owned by Xero (acquired 2025). Integration partnership may not be viable given competitive dynamics - Xero is unlikely to enable a competitor's ledger. Tanda is the recommended alternative. | Evaluate |
ExpenseIn - advisory & channel partners
ExpenseIn's channel model is advisory-led, not SI-led. Partners identify governance gaps in their client base and refer - they don't implement.
| Channel type | Their value | Best vertical fit | Activation requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outsourced CFO firms | Identify governance gaps early; influence spend-control decisions across client portfolio | NFPs, professional services, construction | Spend Governance Health Check tool; referral criteria; commercial model |
| Advisory practices | Managing client portfolios - see governance failures across multiple organisations | NFPs, health, construction | Policy template library by vertical; admin time ROI calculator |
| Audit-aligned consultants | Audit readiness is a direct selling point - "pre-audit" governance positioning | NFPs (acquittal), health (compliance), construction (project audit) | Governance case study pack; "audit-ready" evidence workflow templates |
| AccountsIQ co-sell | Bundled value proposition - finance consolidation + spend governance. No competitor can match this. | All verticals where AIQ is present | Joint pricing; unified implementation playbook; shared account management |
Partner activation sequence
Month 1–2
Foundation
Define ICP by vertical; build partner shortlist and target account list; design accreditation criteria (sales-ready + delivery-ready + escalation SLAs)
Month 2–4
Recruit 3 anchors
Recruit 3 anchor implementers with clear onboarding criteria; begin partner accreditation v1; co-sell cadence + SLAs defined
Month 4–8
Accreditation v2
Partner accreditation v2 (post-pilot learning); expand to 5 implementers; launch co-sell cadence; begin ISV joint campaigns (Cin7 first)
Month 8–12
Scale readiness
Publish partner kits + case studies; partner-influenced share growing; 2–3 high-performing vertical specialists identified; paid test (post-proof only)
Commercial models: Referral fee (10–15% first-year ARR) | Implementation margin (partner keeps fees) | Reseller margin (15–25% tiered) | Co-marketing fund tied to activities.
8.7
Strategic recommendation
- Enter Australia with a narrow ICP wedge for both products. Broad mid-market positioning will increase cost and friction. Focused execution builds early traction.
- Lead with governance (ExpenseIn) and consolidation confidence (AccountsIQ). These are the category-defining messages - not feature lists or pricing comparisons.
- Prioritise partner-led distribution over paid acquisition in Year 1. Partners reduce switching risk 3x vs direct. Credibility comes before volume.
- Prove outcomes in 1–2 verticals before scaling. Construction and NFP/charities are the highest-confidence entry points for both products.
- Build implementation credibility as a core differentiator. The market distrusts implementation quality more than product depth - structured onboarding is the competitive moat.
- Disciplined entry > broad expansion. Segmentation discipline, implementation credibility, and partner-led distribution are the success conditions.
8.8
Final assessment
Australia is a credible opportunity - but not a volume-first play. Success depends on precise ICP focus, clear category positioning, implementation confidence, partner-led credibility, and measured Year 1 execution. Alignment today enables disciplined expansion tomorrow.
Success condition 1
Precise ICP focus
Narrow targeting of $10–25m multi-entity firms (AccountsIQ) and 10–200 cardholder audit-sensitive orgs (ExpenseIn)
Success condition 2
Clear category positioning
"Finance-first consolidation" and "Pre-spend governance layer" - not generic mid-market accounting or expense management
Success condition 3
Implementation confidence
Structured onboarding, migration kits, and partner accreditation reduce the primary barrier: fear of implementation failure
Success condition 4
Partner-led credibility
Advisory firms, outsourced CFOs, and implementation partners provide trust that direct sales cannot manufacture
09
Interview findings
Summary
- Qualitative interviews with advisory leaders, ecosystem operators, and vertical SaaS founders validate the research and add on-the-ground nuance
- Recurring themes: high CAC risk, Acumatica weakness as opportunity, NFP sector underserved, integration ecosystem is the moat
- Direct go-to-market with large accounting firm partnerships (not channel-led) is the consensus path
7.1
Tony Harcourt - Founder & CEO, WorkGuru
Interviewee
Tony Harcourt
Founder & CEO, WorkGuru - job management & project costing platform integrated with Xero
Perspective
ISV / Ecosystem
Deep knowledge of AU mid-market operations, Acumatica migration patterns, and channel dynamics
Key insights
"Their difficulty is going to be CAC to LTV ratio straight up. If you're having to convince somebody it's not Xero... then you're also saying, I'm not MYOB Advanced or Acumatica or NetSuite."
Tony Harcourt on AccountsIQ's positioning challenge
- Brand recognition is a barrier - Sage Intacct, NetSuite, and MYOB Acumatica have established names in AU, even if product quality varies
- The "squeezed middle" positioning (above Xero, below full ERP) means targeting ~1–2% of the market who will ever buy - CAC will be high
- Existing competitors can offset subscription cost with large upfront implementation fees, which funds sales effort
"Acumatica is a piece ofshit. It is overpriced and it doesn't do superannuation or Australian payroll or Australian GST out of the box."
Tony Harcourt
- WorkGuru is pulling ~10 customers/month off Acumatica onto WorkGuru + Xero
- Specific example: an NFP pushed off MYOB AccountRight to Acumatica - A$500k project for what ended up being a general ledger with 120 departments, no payroll, no bank recs, no batch payments
- Strongest attack vector: NFPs and charities who were upsold into Acumatica and are underserved
- Sunk cost fallacy is real for existing Acumatica/NetSuite users - but dissatisfaction creates windows
"I would attack Acumatica. For not-for-profits. I see a big value gap there... there is nothing that does that well right now."
Tony Harcourt
- NFPs need project reporting to budgets on a cost-centre basis, allocating open POs - no product does this well
- Multi-tier workflow approvals attached to the general ledger is a key need
- Grant-based funding means no revenue per se - it's cost-centre accounting with acquittal reporting
- Larger accounting firms (BDO, Baker Tilly, PwC) bring these clients - advisory divisions are the entry point
- Cin7 + Lightspeed recommended as priority ISV integration partners - they have multi-entity, multi-site customers hitting limits
- Keypay / Employment Hero is essential for payroll - must be in place before launch
- STP2 and Payday Super compliance must be covered through integration partner from day one
- Xero's integration ecosystem is the moat - switching cost is high when you're moving off Cin7 + Shopify + A2X + Stripe feeds
- Xero may be launching a "big ledger" product (A$500–A$1000/month) that handles transaction volume limits - potential threat
"Your best pathway is your larger accounting firms that have clients that don't need your $200,000 NetSuite implementation, but they do need the financial controls... ones that have particularly advisory divisions."
Tony Harcourt
- WorkGuru has largely given up on accounting/bookkeeping as a go-to-market channel - went direct and saw inbound leads jump from 25/month to 130+/month at under A$100 CPL
- XeroCon London described as "biggest waste of time and money ever" for ISVs at WorkGuru's stage
- PwC, BDO, Baker Tilly advisory divisions are where the mid-market finance-platform opportunities surface
- Real estate / property and hospitality (multi-entity, trust accounting) flagged as potential verticals others overlook
- NetSuite and Acumatica dominate the AU mid-market ERP space - Dynamics was late and didn't own its own financials module initially
- Product/retail businesses hit Xero transaction limits more than service businesses - focus there for "outgrowing Xero" messaging
- TenSeven (now Cin7) seeing customers lost to NetSuite on transaction volume - potential co-sell opportunity
- Xero big ledger product rumour is a potential competitive risk if it materialises broadly
7.2
Robert King - Cin7 Implementation Partner
Interviewee
Robert King
Leading Cin7 implementation partner in Australia - largest Cin7 partner by volume
Perspective
Implementation / Channel
Deep experience with mid-market inventory clients outgrowing Xero, Acumatica migrations, and ERP selection
Key insights
"Cin7 does have that problem where their client base grows, the client can turn to NetSuite. It's not that Cin7 can't service them - it's the weakness of Xero."
Robert King on the core Xero churn trigger
- Cin7's largest clients (A$50m+ turnover) are being lost to NetSuite - not because Cin7 fails, but because Xero breaks on transaction volume
- Current workaround: strip Xero back to a bank-feed engine, layer a data lake (DataSights / Wink Toolbox) over the top for reporting - fragile and expensive
- Xero is now contacting high-volume clients asking them to buy a higher SKU at ~A$1,000/month - causing frustration
- If AccountsIQ can replace the Xero layer without forcing clients off Cin7, it prevents a full NetSuite migration - massive value proposition for both Cin7 and their partners
"Xero's now started contacting these clients and saying, hey, you're pushing 14,000 entries in a month. Please buy a higher SKU plan. Whereas previously we had them on a $90 plan."
Robert King
- Transaction volume - clients pushing 14,000+ entries/month hitting limits
- Data dimensions - Xero only supports 3 dimensions (P&L + 2 tracking categories). A cattle ranch business needed 5 perspectives and had to go to Microsoft Dynamics Nav solely for that
- Multi-entity consolidation - especially hospitality and property groups where each location is a separate entity but needs roll-up reporting
- Xero did research a year ago on higher-tier plans but never communicated outcomes to partners - now just cold-contacting clients for upsells
"They get that understanding that although it's very clunky and very cumbersome to deploy and implement... multiple steps required to get something done. It's very admin intensive."
Robert King on Acumatica
- Acumatica has multi-ledger misalignment issues - debtor, creditor, and GL ledgers sometimes don't reconcile
- Per-user pricing model: A$180/month/user means 10 users = A$1,800/month before A$50k implementation - AccountsIQ can undercut significantly
- Acumatica is only sold via MYOB partners (channel-locked distribution like old Xero/GreenTree model)
- Cin7 consistently wins against Acumatica in side-by-side demos - admin overhead is the key differentiator
- Cin7 integration is priority #1 - Cin7 requires AccountsIQ to build the connector via their API (they only maintain integrations for Xero/QuickBooks/Shopify-scale platforms)
- Andrew G at Cin7 (ISV partnerships, based in Sydney, 8–10 years in role) is the key contact - Robert offered to make the introduction
- Cin7 is currently restructuring to attract bigger clients and focused on churn prevention - aligns with AccountsIQ's value prop
- Payment gateway integration needed: Pinch (Glass Box solution) or Stripe recommended
- HubSpot/Salesforce integrations already in place - HubSpot implementation partners could be a secondary channel (they handle ERP integration for clients post-sale)
- Found (acquired by Citation Group, UK conglomerate) suggested as payroll partner - pre-existing UK relationship could open doors
"The normal tax compliance accountant with a mid-level sized business is not having the decisions around core platform decision making. It tends to be the CFO or internal commercial accountants."
Robert King
- Mid-market platform decisions are made by CFOs and internal commercial accountants - not external tax compliance accountants
- The accounting channel generates fewer but higher-value referrals - a CFO floating between 3 businesses may refer all 3
- Implementation partners (like Robert's firm) want referral/implementation revenue, not just introductions - AccountsIQ's partner programme must offer this
- Airwallex has low uptake despite strong relationships - Dext still dominates on coding automation even though it doesn't handle payments
- Key gap: expense tools do payments/approvals well but don't match Dext's AI-driven coding efficiency - whoever solves both wins
- Per-head pricing is problematic for businesses with many low-volume card users - need to accommodate both heavy and light users
- Ideal expense management customer: 5–10 card users (pushes into mid-market), but they also want non-card expense capture in the same tool to avoid running two systems
- The standalone ExpenseIn + Xero integration could be a lower-friction entry point before upselling AccountsIQ
- Andrew G (Cin7) - ISV partnerships lead, Sydney-based. Robert to make introduction for AccountsIQ integration discussion
- Jeff from SMB Consultants - sees bigger mid-market deal flow, long industry tenure
- Scott Schaefer (US) - does cross-border ERP comparison work for AU businesses considering Cin7, could validate US expansion angle
- Brian Williams (Hockey Stick Advisory) - specialises in SaaS partnership programme design and referral strategy for non-accounting vendors
- Robert expressed interest in meeting AccountsIQ team in person - potential implementation/referral partner
7.3
Tyler Caskey - CFO & Advisory Practice
Interviewee
Tyler Caskey
CFO / advisory practice operator - works across mid-market clients selecting and implementing finance platforms
Perspective
CFO / Buyer
Active in platform selection for A$10m–A$50m+ businesses; sees the gaps first-hand as a finance decision-maker
Key insights
"I see three or four kind of holes in that mid-market. Number one is a large business on Xero, they're tapping out 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 transactions. They don't need to go to NetSuite because they're Australian only. They're just high volume."
Tyler Caskey on the core opportunity for AccountsIQ
- Prime target: large businesses without stock that are high volume - they don't need NetSuite's warehouse management or customisation, just a ledger that handles scale
- Real example: Angus Australia - 13,000 invoices/month (13,000 farm members), custom billing system, no stock. Currently evaluating Odoo, Zoho Books, and Xero's new high-tier SKU
- Financial services firms - custom-built systems, high transaction volume, heavy automation needs. Hard to break in but huge if you do
- SaaS/subscription businesses using Maxio or Chargebee - 500–1,000 invoices/month that double quickly. Can't batch their recurring billing. Campfire is attacking this in the US but AU is open
- Data analytics businesses - high invoice volume, subscription-based, custom billing, no inventory anywhere near them
- NDIS providers - revenue is bulky with government grants, 500+ staff still run on Xero without transaction issues, but payroll is heavy. Not the core target but adjacent
"There's really only two players - Odoo and Acumatica. Zoho, I don't even count it, man. It hasn't got its bank feed sorted, it hasn't got its STP sorted, it's just not there."
Tyler Caskey
| Competitor | Tyler's assessment | AccountsIQ advantage |
|---|---|---|
| Odoo | A$30–50/user, good features but expensive consultants, 10–15 salespeople attacking AU monthly | Simpler deployment, no full-time admin required |
| Acumatica | Clunky, admin-intensive, locked to MYOB partners | Better UX, competitive pricing, open API |
| Zoho Books | Not viewed as a compelling CFO-led alternative in the mid-market segment | AU-ready compliance from day one |
| Business Central | IT-led platform alignment; wins when Microsoft stack dominates - not CFO-led | Cloud-native, CFO-oriented UX; the CFO owns the problem |
| NetSuite | A$150k–A$300k+/year for comparable setups; heavyweight ERP with strong partner ecosystem | Right-sized for the gap below NetSuite; ~1/6th the cost |
- AccountsIQ at ~A$500–600/month per entity is in the right zone - "thousands of Aussie businesses pushing Xero to the max" at that price point
- AccountsIQ's subscription ARPA (~A$15k–A$23k/yr) positions it as approximately 1/6th the cost of NetSuite for comparable multi-entity setups, while being meaningfully above stretched Xero + add-ons - this is a key commercial advantage
- Xero reportedly launching a ~A$500/month high-volume SKU - but still limited on features, so AccountsIQ can compete on capability
- Odoo at A$30–50/user adds up fast with teams of 10+ - per-entity pricing could undercut
- NetSuite at A$150k–A$300k+/year for comparable multi-entity setups - AccountsIQ at ~1/6th the cost fills the price gap perfectly
- Acumatica (MYOB Advanced) and Sage Intacct both sit at materially higher total cost - and are increasingly charging additional premiums for AI features, which may widen AccountsIQ's cost-of-ownership advantage
- At A$15k–A$23k/year for a mid-market finance platform with multi-entity consolidation, AccountsIQ sits in a clear pricing sweet spot - meaningfully below ERP alternatives while delivering consolidation capabilities Xero cannot match
"Hell, yes. That's a huge, huge win. You're competing against Airwallex, which is pretty hard, but having expenses and AP approvals all in the one thing - yes, that's got a market for sure."
Tyler Caskey on ExpenseIn
- Odoo does expense reimbursement only - no cards. ExpenseIn with cards is a clear differentiator
- Reel (Weel) is "pretty
damngood" but expensive (A$375 for 10 users) and lacks audit trail that Airwallex has - Combining expenses + AP approvals + cards in one platform removes the need for two separate tools - common pain point
- The standalone ExpenseIn + Xero integration is a strong lower-friction entry point before upselling AccountsIQ
- Cin7 Core (not Omni) integration would be the priority - "the world's your oyster" with a good Cin7 Core connector
- Cin7 can batch transactions so the Xero volume problem is less acute - but still exists for larger Cin7 clients
- Fashion brand example: A$50m turnover, having Cin7 troubles, already getting Xero volume warnings - exact AccountsIQ ICP
- The Cin7 play is about churn prevention: keep clients on Cin7, replace Xero underneath
- Bank feeds - "if you've got good bank feeds, accountants can get in there and do reviews and amendments" - essential for adoption
- ATO connection - STP and BAS integration must work from day one
- Payroll integration - "just needs to be a journal" that pushes cleanly from Employment Hero/KeyPay. Doesn't need to be native, but must work reliably
- Open API - Tyler checked the API during the call and confirmed it looks open. Custom integrations are key for high-volume businesses with bespoke billing systems
- Payroll: kick clients off Xero payroll at 20+ staff - Employment Hero, Deputy Payroll, or the new ex-KeyPay team's product are the options
"It's got fundamental failings in finance. If I do a journal and it's around the wrong way, I have to reverse that journal and then redo it. I can't just edit it... bank feeds like it's 1999. I'm never choosing this as a CFO."
Tyler Caskey on Microsoft Business Central
- Only gets selected when the business is already deep in Microsoft CRM - the finance module is a bolt-on, not a choice
- Half the price of NetSuite but "apart from having good reporting, it's a pretty rough system"
- Employment Hero can't integrate with it - you get half a system with no HR/payroll bridge
7.4
Matt Paff - Mid-Market Software Veteran
Interviewee
Matt Paff
Former GM of Attache (mid-market accounting), PE due diligence advisor, founder of VShore - 25 years in AU mid-market software
Perspective
Industry Strategist
Deep competitive knowledge, channel strategy, private equity advisory - the most contrarian and direct voice in this research
Key insights
"Unless they find a channel to market that's currently unserviced, they are zero chance. And if they think the unserviced market is generic multi-tenant, multi-company accounting software, they will not go anywhere in Australia."
Matt Paff - the most direct assessment of AccountsIQ's AU challenge
"I've been saying, because I come from the mid-market, the mid-market is dead. People are going to use Xero beyond its means and people are going to scale down Business Central and NetSuite and Acumatica and Odoo - those four, you're never going to compete with those four."
Matt Paff
- Generic mid-market accounting software is not a viable positioning - the category is being squeezed from both ends
- Xero stretches upward (users push it beyond its means), while Business Central, NetSuite, Acumatica, and Odoo scale downward
- AccountsIQ admitted they can't compete with those four - so where do they fit?
- The answer: don't go to market as generic accounting software - find a channel that's currently unserviced
"The biggest opportunity for AccountsIQ is not to try and build a market themselves because the market is actually quite saturated. What they need to do is find the disaffected Cin7s of the world, the SimPros - and solve a problem for them. Don't worry about the end customer as much as the vendor with the channel to market."
Matt Paff
- Xero is creating a market opportunity right now by pissing off its ISV ecosystem - Xero has launched inventory in the US, threatening Cin7's new-to-category customers
- Cin7 and SimPro customers keep calling Matt saying "we've got Cin7 plus Xero, it's a disaster - the sales guy said we don't need an ERP but I can't run a BAS report"
- The strategy: become the ledger that replaces Xero underneath the ISV stack, not a standalone product competing for attention
- This mirrors how Accounting Seed succeeded - found a niche inside Salesforce's ecosystem and got a few hundred AU customers without feet on the ground
"I would say Access Financials is the direct competitor of AccountsIQ. They've got a captive audience with the Attache customer base. They own Unleashed with heaps of larger Xero customers. And they sold 27 customers in five years."
Matt Paff
- Access Group (UK company) bought Attache - had 40 years of mid-market AU presence, an existing customer base, AND owned Unleashed (inventory ISV with large Xero clients)
- Despite all those advantages, Access Financials sold only 27 customers in 5 years in Australia
- If Access Group can't sell with a captive audience and channel, AccountsIQ's direct-to-market approach faces even steeper odds
- Access Group is described as following "Sage's playbook from 30 years ago" - acquiring products and burning money without market traction
| Product | What happened | Lesson for AccountsIQ |
|---|---|---|
| Gem Accounts | Bought by SimPro to solve "larger customers don't want Xero" - killed off in less than a year | Even with a captive channel (SimPro's customer base), the mid-market accounting product didn't survive |
| Access Financials | UK company, bought Attache + Unleashed - 27 customers in 5 years | Captive audience and channel weren't enough |
| Infusion / Sprocket | 3,000 NZ customers, new investors, millions spent - struggling to get AU foothold | "ERP that's not ERP" positioning doesn't differentiate |
| Acredo | Acquired by Constellation Group, heavy investment - "getting nowhere" | Even PE-backed mid-market accounting struggles in AU |
| N2 | NZ-based, same "ERP without being ERP" positioning | Crowded category with no clear winner |
- Sage Intacct is "the most direct competitor of AccountsIQ" - and they're trying to build a channel in AU right now
- Key difference: Intacct has the Sage brand and the existing Sage Partner Channel (who were already selling Attache, etc.)
- Sage is "a much better company than they used to be" - the old Sage playbook is now being run by Access Group instead
- Accounting Seed (Salesforce-native accounting) has a few hundred AU customers without any feet on the ground - found a niche ecosystem play instead of going broad
- Employment Hero "are burning so many bridges" - stealing clients from their own partners, creating risk for anyone who partners with them
- Alternative payroll options Matt identified:
- PayRu - can be white-labelled, has a relationship with Citation Group
- Datacom / DataPay (NZ) - white-label their payroll product
- ReadyTech / ReadyPay - can white-label but "it's pretty
shit" - Payroll Metrics - the larger-client white label used by Uneek, HumanForce, UKG
- Ex-KeyPay devs - building a new API-led payroll from the ground up (early stage)
- Everyone has gone the Employment Hero path - doing something different could be a differentiator
"Product is no longer the most sustainable competitive advantage. It's so easy to copy product quickly now. Brand and distribution is actually the thing that becomes harder - you can't copy your brand and distribution gives you access to scale."
Matt Paff
- AccountsIQ has no brand in Australia and no distribution - building both from scratch against entrenched players is the core risk
- Matt's own success with VShore came from integration partnerships (Tanda pays for VShore for their customers) - "the sales cycle is instant"
- The Accounting Seed model proves it: find an ecosystem, embed deeply, get customers without feet on the ground
- If AccountsIQ embeds into Cin7/SimPro's ecosystem as the ledger replacement, distribution comes from the ISV's existing sales team
7.5
Lawrence Petruzzelli - Accounting Firm Owner & Practitioner
Interviewee
Lawrence Petruzzelli
Founder of a 13-person tax & accounting firm managing 300+ business clients and 550+ individuals across Australia
Perspective
Practitioner / Firm Owner
Day-to-day experience with Xero at scale - clients from sub-$1M to near $100M turnover, heavily Xero-dependent
Key insights
"We can't run a GST report. You just physically can't run a GST report when we review their BAS because there's just too many line items that come through - Google Chrome just runs out of memory and it crashes."
Lawrence Petruzzelli on his near-$100M wholesaler client breaking Xero
- A fresh produce wholesaler nearing $100M turnover services ~1,000 stores across Victoria, generating ~1,000 individual invoices per day pushed into Xero via their SaaS ordering system
- BAS/GST reports crash - even on a 32GB RAM PC, Chrome runs out of memory trying to render the report. They physically cannot run a GST report for BAS review
- P&L reports limit to 1,000 line items per page - navigating thousands of pages to review
- Banking reconciliation still works fine - the failure point is specifically reporting at scale
- The client has been recommended to migrate but refuses to change systems - so the firm uses manual workarounds to review BAS
"When a business starts pushing probably 100 invoices a day, it starts to break. Because if you do 100 invoices a day, seven days a week, and when you try to run some of those reports, there's just too many line items."
Lawrence Petruzzelli
- 1. Transaction volume - ~100 invoices/day is the threshold where reports start failing. Manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesale verticals hit this first
- 2. Large payroll (100+ staff) - large withholding reporting not supported, multi-state payroll tax segregation is manual, recruitment/labour hire firms particularly affected
- 3. Asset management - tracking machinery, equipment, and depreciation becomes cumbersome beyond the small business write-off threshold. High-volume asset registers need ERP-grade tooling
"I probably just duct tape it together as much as possible until it breaks Xero like it has with that client that's nearing 100 mil."
Lawrence Petruzzelli
- Strong preference for add-ons (Cin7, Unleashed, A2X, Shopify integrations) over full migration - wants to preserve Xero as the single source of truth for tax compliance
- E-commerce clients doing $50M+ can work on Xero because platforms like Shopify only push 1–2 summary line items per day, not individual transactions
- Migration is a last resort - only recommended when Xero physically cannot produce required reports
- Even when migration is recommended, clients often refuse: "they don't want to change systems, so we just use our workarounds"
"I've got a business pushing 50, 60 million dollars through Xero... they're only on the hundred dollar a month one, whereas I've got another business which has got lawyers... 24 staff and they're paying two or three times the fee."
Lawrence Petruzzelli
- Xero's pricing is driven by payroll headcount, not revenue or complexity - creates irrational cost scaling
- A $50M+ e-commerce business with 6 staff pays ~$100/month; a $6M law firm with 24 staff pays 2–3x more
- The cost of duct-taping 3+ add-ons together can exceed the cost of a purpose-built ERP - that's the economic tipping point
- Opportunity: a platform priced on business complexity, not headcount would resonate
"Sometimes it's the uniformity of data across so many systems can break down. Whereas that's where I think if you had an ERP that had a core sort of data bank... you have your one source of data truth."
Lawrence Petruzzelli
- Wholesale + D2C businesses with distributed stock across Amazon, 3PLs, own warehouse, and retail stores have no polished mid-market solution
- Data flows from Shopify, A2X, Cin7, Klaviyo, and marketplace platforms with no single source of truth - reconciliation across 5+ data sources is manual and error-prone
- Staff turnover breaks the system: when the one person who understands the duct-taped setup leaves, "we get into the accounts and we're like, why is this account completely out?"
- These businesses are priced out of full WMS/ERP solutions but too complex for Xero + add-ons - the classic "stuck in the middle" segment
- Would not recommend a specific ERP - prefers to bring in an agnostic consultant for analysis, migration planning, installation, training, and ongoing support
- Strong "AI first" bias: would approach an AI developer who can build custom solutions with a proper data foundation, over a traditional ERP vendor
- Sceptical of generic AI wrappers: "you want something that as much as a lot of places is a buzzword, these guys actually produce proper AI, not just BS ChatGPT APIs"
- Ideal solution: an ERP with a core data bank that serves as the single source of truth, with AI and integrations layered on top
7.6
Adrian Stead - Practice Manager, Quantum Advisory
Interviewee
Adrian Stead
Practice Manager at Quantum Advisory - a Xero-based firm advising clients typically in the A$5–20M turnover range
Perspective
Advisory / Practice Manager
Operational lens on client readiness, implementation risk, and the gap between Xero-class and ERP-class platforms
Key insights
"There isn't a lot to choose from between an Odoo type platform and a NetSuite type platform. There's no options."
Adrian Stead on the mid-market platform gap
"I don't know whether it's break, it's more just a thirst for information to improve. They might see clearly that profitability is not where they want it to be. And they want to drill into it more."
Adrian Stead
- Quantum Advisory doesn't typically advise clients to migrate - clients come to that decision themselves, and the firm helps steer them on what to look for
- The trigger is rarely a "break" - it's a desire to drill deeper into profitability and cost management that a straight input/output ledger can't deliver
- Manufacturing cost management is the primary trigger: measuring wastage, raw materials in vs. product out, understanding cost blowouts at the line-item level
- CRM capabilities are a secondary trigger - wanting invoice history combined with relationship context in a single system
- Odoo is pitched at filling the gap above Xero, but implementation quality is a serious problem - internal teams struggle with ledger mapping and back-end setup
- NetSuite clients can justify the cost and have the resources for proper implementation; smaller businesses can't
- The result: businesses needing more than Xero face a binary choice between a risky Odoo implementation and an unaffordable NetSuite deployment
- Need for either a better installer/implementation ecosystem for smaller businesses, or a way to "layer down" NetSuite-class capabilities to an entry level that grows
"It's better to put that energy into making the business go better and have simpler reporting for a while, but just get the bottom line better before you try and get fancy."
Adrian Stead
- A current client had a business mentor recommend Odoo - but the client's internal accounting capability is limited, already needing heavy support at Xero level
- Adding a complex new system without sufficient understanding of what you're trying to achieve would be "very overwhelming"
- The client's own test: "if it's not an advantage for the relationship between us and them [the accountant], they don't want to do it"
- Migration distraction, incorrect reporting from bad setup, and misleading insights are all worse than staying on a simpler system
"I just wish some of those programs had the forethought to realize that everybody starts somewhere. If you start here, in 10 years this system will grow with you. And you don't have to pay the big Rolls-Royce price now - you can just pay the Suzuki hatchback price."
Adrian Stead
- Current platforms force a binary choice: free/cheap tier or massive price jump (e.g. HubSpot free → $1,500/month with nothing in between)
- Ideal: entry-level pricing with layered support matching business maturity - smaller businesses need more hand-holding, larger businesses have internal resource (CFO)
- The system should grow without disruption - no "massive decision" or full re-implementation as the business scales
- Post-exit entrepreneurs are an overlooked segment: they sell a $25M business, start new ventures, know NetSuite but it's overkill for a startup - they need something that grows with them again
- Quantum Advisory's core clients sit in the A$5–20M range - below $5M, limited internal resource; above $20M, they recruit a CFO and move toward Big Four firms
- Platform mix across the portfolio: Xero (core), with some clients on NetSuite, Odoo, and legacy systems like Exanet - firm pulls everything into Xero for their internal work
- A current ~$2M client is "building with the end in mind" - putting in systems now that are overrated for today but will prevent disruption during growth. This is rare but ideal
- Adrian sees clients as "strong business heads and quite future facing" - they internally trigger the desire for better systems, the firm's role is to guide, not push
7.7
Maz Wichman - ProSpend / Expense Management
Interviewee
Marianne (Maz) Wichman
Partnerships at ProSpend (expense & AP automation). Previously at Weel and Attache (now Access Financials) - deep mid-market & partner ecosystem experience
Perspective
Expense / AP Ecosystem
Cross-platform view from selling into Acumatica, Sage, Business Central, and Pronto partner bases - plus former mid-market ERP (Attache) sales experience
Key insights
"I don't think there's anything in the middle. But everyone's doing integrations of some sort... The point of difference would be everything under the one bonnet."
Maz Wichman on AccountsIQ's core positioning opportunity
- Partners selling Sage, Acumatica, Pronto, and Business Central all report the mid-market as "saturated" - but the gap between Xero and full ERP remains unfilled
- NetSuite partners position themselves above mid-market (clients like Maya, Esop) - they don't compete in the same space AccountsIQ would target
- Attache previously owned this "middle" positioning - "you're moving off MYOB and you're not quite ready for ERP" - but Access Financials has done nothing with the product since acquiring it
- The Xero ecosystem is transient: apps get acquired (Sift by Xero, Mayday buying competitors), people change, support degrades. The ERP space is "a lot more solid, a lot more mature"
"As soon as you say 'but you can integrate this or you can integrate that' - you know, that's no different to Xero. Whereas when you're looking at an ERP, you've got less that you have to integrate. You get all the reporting, you get the consolidations."
Maz Wichman
- Integration-based positioning is not a differentiator - every platform claims it. The real POD is consolidation, reporting, and AP/AR approvals in a single system without app sprawl
- Maz attended a Xero event where Tyler Caskey presented a migration from Attache to Xero - the client still had multiple entities and multiple integrating apps where Attache had everything under one roof
- Mid-market businesses find it "so confusing" - they don't know whether to go Xero-best-of-breed or ERP. Something in between that does it all is the answer
"He said they're really busy but they're not closing - because the financial controller has gone, so they've had to put on hold. He was blown away by how much of that was actually happening."
Maz Wichman relaying feedback from a major NetSuite partner
- A major NetSuite partner reported multiple stalled deals due to financial controller turnover - prospects go on hold mid-process waiting for a replacement
- Mid-market has fewer qualified people for consulting and sales roles compared to the Xero/QuickBooks/MYOB ecosystem - talent pool is shallower
- This suggests AccountsIQ needs to sell to the role, not the person - and ensure the evaluation can survive a champion leaving
"If you got into one or two of them, you'd nail it - because the investors that own them don't own just one. They own multiples of them."
Maz Wichman on medical centre groups
- Medical centres are inherently multi-entity: dental, physio, doctors, labs, pathology - all separate entities within one centre, and investors typically own multiple centres
- This is a growing sector with strong expansion dynamics - landing one group opens the door to their entire portfolio
- Validates the research's identification of Health Services as a top-3 vertical priority for AccountsIQ
- Maz's direct recommendation: "That's an area I'd stay away from" - despite NFP being AccountsIQ's strongest UK segment
- Sage dominates NFP in Australia and has deep incumbency across different sizes of not-for-profit organisations
- Counter-signal: "It never ceases to blow me away how many not-for-profit organisations we've got" - the sheer volume means niches may still exist despite Sage's dominance
- Aligns with other interview findings that NFP is viable but requires careful targeting around Sage's blind spots (smaller multi-entity NFPs, those needing modern UX)
- When MYOB bought out partners years ago, many hedged by onboarding Business Central as their second product - it's now the most popular alternative among Acumatica partners
- MYOB has since reversed course - no longer going direct, returning to partner-led. This created ecosystem instability that partners are still navigating
- The recent Acumatica partner event had markedly better energy than 2024 - partners are engaging, MYOB teams are more relaxed, and product development is accelerating
- Acumatica is still "entry level" - no three-way matching, basic expenses module - but improving. ProSpend sees ~35–40% of their customer base on Acumatica
- MYOB will be pushing Acumatica into the UK - creating a two-way competitive dynamic with AccountsIQ
- Acumatica and Sage regularly price themselves out of deals because of per-user licensing - businesses with one or two staff needing occasional access end up paying for full seats
- This drives mid-market businesses toward third-party tools (like ProSpend) that charge per active user or flat-rate - to avoid bloated platform costs
- AccountsIQ's per-entity pricing model may be a real advantage here - worth emphasising vs. competitors who charge per seat
"They've saturated the low end of the market. There's more money to be made in the mid-market than there is down where they are."
Maz Wichman on Xero's upmarket ambitions
- Xero is "obviously" moving into mid-market - acquiring capabilities (Sift, etc.), hiking prices, and working on a ledger product handling 2,000–3,000+ transactions
- But they can't do it while relying on third-party integrations - "you can't just keep acquiring businesses and saying, well now we do all that"
- This creates a window for AccountsIQ: Xero isn't there yet, Acumatica is entry-level, and the mid-market needs a solution now
10
AccountsIQ - accounting systems survey
Summary
- 24 respondents across AU - overwhelmingly Xero-dominant (71%, 17/24), with 80% on their current platform for 3+ years
- Top pain: integration limitations (8 selections), reporting inflexibility (6), heavy reliance on spreadsheets (6) - 58% (14/24) citing at least one core operational challenge
- Baseline local requirements: AU tax & GST (95%), Payroll compliance (76%), AU-based support (40%)
- #1 deal-breaker: high cost relative to value (84%) - price sensitivity is extreme. 52% expect to pay under $5,000/yr
- AI sentiment is positive: 56% actively interested, only 12% sceptical - fastest AI wins in reporting, reducing manual work, and anomaly detection
Journey ran a quantitative survey titled "The Firm - Industry Survey (Mid-Market Accounting Software)" across Australian finance leaders and practitioners between January and February 2026. The survey captured 28 submissions, of which 24 were from Australian-based respondents with completed answers.
Source: View raw survey data →
8.1
Respondent demographics
Total AU respondents
24
Finance leaders, accountants, CFOs, controllers - predominantly professional services
Primary platform
Xero (71%)
17/24 respondents. MYOB 4%, Sage Intacct 4%, NetSuite 4%, QuickBooks 4%, combination 12%
Tenure on platform
5+ yrs (60%)
80% on their current platform for 3+ years - deeply embedded
Roles represented
| Role | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Accountant in Practice | 12 | 50% |
| Financial Controller / Head of Finance | 4 | 17% |
| CFO | 3 | 13% |
| Partner / COO / BAS Agent / Bookkeeper | 5 | 20% |
Organisation size
| Size (employees) | Count | Revenue range |
|---|---|---|
| Under 20 | 15 (63%) | Mostly under $5m |
| 20–50 | 5 (21%) | $5m–$20m |
| 51–100 | 1 (4%) | $5m–$20m |
| 101–250 | 2 (8%) | $50m–$100m |
| 251–500 | 1 (4%) | $100m+ |
The respondent base skews heavily toward smaller professional services firms on Xero. The larger outliers - a CFO at a $100m+ construction firm and a CFO at a $50m–$100m SaaS company - provide critical mid-market signal that aligns directly with AccountsIQ's ICP.
Survey analysis
8.2
Pain points & switch triggers
Current platform satisfaction
| Satisfaction level | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Works well and meets our needs | 11 | 46% |
| Mostly works, but starting to show strain | 5 | 21% |
| Works, but requires frequent workarounds | 4 | 17% |
| Struggles to support current needs | 2 | 8% |
Top challenges (multi-select)
| Challenge | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Integration limitations with other systems | 10 (40%) |
| Reporting lacks flexibility or depth | 8 (32%) |
| Heavy reliance on spreadsheets | 7 (28%) |
| Difficulty consolidating multiple entities | 4 (16%) |
| Audit or compliance processes are complex/manual | 4 (16%) |
| System struggles to scale as the business grows | 3 (12%) |
| Month-end close takes too long | 2 (8%) |
| No major issues at present | 5 (20%) |
What would trigger a platform review?
| Trigger | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Business growth or increased complexity | 12 (48%) |
| System limitations becoming unmanageable | 8 (32%) |
| Adding entities or group structures | 4 (16%) |
| Audit or compliance pressure | 4 (16%) |
| Recommendation from accountant or advisor | 3 (12%) |
| No trigger on the horizon | 4 (16%) |
"Not all systems integrate seamlessly and we still use spreadsheets."
Accountant in Practice, VIC - Xero, 20–50 staff
"Cost of apps and integration. Sometimes multiple subscriptions just for one functionality."
Accountant in Practice, QLD - QuickBooks
"We trade speed and confidence for manual work. We can get the numbers out, but we can't easily tailor reports, or answer new questions without exporting to Excel and rebuilding."
Sr Accountant, NSW - combination of systems
"Cost vs benefit weigh up of multiple entities in software (that often have limited transactional activity) vs manual consolidation."
COO, Tech/SaaS, NSW - Xero
"The existing system setup (CoA, divisional and project splits) and the historical complexities driving the fear to unwind or consolidate."
CFO, Construction, NT - $100m+, 251–500 staff
8.3
Buying behaviour & decision-making
Integration importance
92% critical
Mission-critical: 32%, Very important: 44%, Somewhat: 16%
#1 deal-breaker
High cost (84%)
Followed by: loss of integrations (40%), long implementation (40%)
New entrant concerns
Trust + longevity
"Will it be here in 5 years?" - compliance, support, AU understanding
Baseline AU requirements
| Requirement | % |
|---|---|
| Australian tax and GST handling | 95% |
| Payroll compliance and integrations | 76% |
| Australian-based support | 40% |
| Familiar terminology and reporting formats | 36% |
| Local hosting / data residency | 24% |
What matters most when evaluating?
| Evaluation criteria | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Total cost of ownership | 12 (48%) |
| Reporting and consolidation capability | 10 (40%) |
| Ease of use for the finance team | 10 (40%) |
| Integration flexibility / APIs | 10 (40%) |
| Scalability as the business grows | 6 (24%) |
| Local support or partner ecosystem | 4 (16%) |
Who decides?
Initiates review
CEO/MD (36%)
Finance leadership: 24%, CFO: 20%
Final approval
CEO/MD (40%)
Shared decision: 32%, CFO: 16%, Board: 8%
Research channels
Peer recs + search
Peer recommendations and online search dominate; events secondary
8.4
AI sentiment & pricing expectations
AI sentiment
| Sentiment | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Actively interested | 13 | 56% |
| Cautiously open | 5 | 20% |
| Neutral | 3 | 12% |
| Sceptical | 3 | 12% |
Where could AI add genuine value?
| AI use case | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Faster reporting or insights | 14 (56%) |
| Reducing manual finance work | 12 (48%) |
| Risk or anomaly detection | 12 (48%) |
| Forecasting or scenario modelling | 8 (32%) |
Annual software budget expectations
| Budget range | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Under $5,000 | 10 | 44% |
| $5,000–$10,000 | 4 | 17% |
| $10,000–$25,000 | 2 | 9% |
| $25,000–$50,000 | 2 | 9% |
| $50,000–$100,000 | 2 | 9% |
| Not sure | 2 | 9% |
52% of respondents expect to pay under $5,000/year - but the 4 respondents willing to pay $25k–$100k/yr are all larger businesses (20–500 staff) in AccountsIQ's direct ICP sweet spot. This confirms the interview finding: smaller firms won't move, but the mid-market buyers who will pay are there - they're just a smaller, smaller, tightly targeted cohort.
Survey analysis
"Longevity, functionality, how much it's taken up by other firms and the accounting industry."
Accountant in Practice, ACT
"Most accounting and finance platforms promise a lot and suck hard. Is it better than Xero? Does it have some AI that actually works, not like a drunken 3 year old?"
Partner, VIC - Xero
"Not understanding what the Australian market needs and being compliant."
Accountant in Practice, VIC
"Trust that it works. Trust that it will be around in five years time."
Accountant in Practice, QLD
"Integration with ATO, banking institutions, ASIC and other existing regulatory bodies in Australia. The platform's capability and ability to cope with scale. Longevity and trust."
CFO, Construction, NT - $100m+
11
ExpenseIn - expense & card survey
Summary
- 29 AU respondents - 48% say current setup "works well" but only 28% are very confident policies are followed
- Top pain: manual approvals (38%), missing/late receipts (28%), limited pre-spend visibility (28%)
- #1 deal-breaker: high cost relative to value (72%) - followed by "too complex for employees" (52%)
- Integration with Xero/MYOB is the hard requirement (83%), followed by GST compliance (69%)
- AI sweet spot: flagging risky spend (59%) and automating receipt matching (55%) - exactly what ExpenseIn does
- Price point: 38% expect $5–$10/user/month, 31% want under $5 - ExpenseIn must compete at this level
A companion survey titled "The Firm - Industry Survey (Expense and Company Card Software)" captured 31 submissions from Australian finance professionals. After excluding 2 non-Australian and incomplete responses, 29 valid responses inform the analysis below.
Source: View raw survey data →
9.1
Current state of expense management
How they manage expenses
Xero/MYOB features (45%)
Manual claims: 38%, Dedicated platform: 17%, Bank tools: 10%, Combination: 21%
Company card usage
55% limited roles
Limited to specific roles: 55%, No cards: 24%, Widely used: 14%
Overall satisfaction
48% works well
Works with friction: 17%, Requires workarounds: 10%, Difficult/no longer fit: 7%
When does finance see or control spend?
| Timing | % |
|---|---|
| After expenses are submitted | 41% |
| At the time of the transaction | 24% |
| Before spend occurs | 21% |
| After reimbursement or settlement | 10% |
Over 50% of finance teams only see spend after the money has already left - this is the core visibility gap that ExpenseIn's pre-spend controls and real-time card management directly address.
Survey analysis
9.2
Pain points, confidence & trust
Top challenges (multi-select)
| Challenge | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Manual approvals and reviews | 11 (38%) |
| Missing or late receipts | 8 (28%) |
| Limited visibility before spend happens | 8 (28%) |
| No major issues at present | 10 (34%) |
| Weak controls on company card usage | 4 (14%) |
| Employee or manager frustration | 3 (10%) |
| Inconsistent policy enforcement | 2 (7%) |
Policy confidence
| Confidence level | % |
|---|---|
| Very confident | 34% |
| Somewhat confident | 38% |
| Not very confident | 10% |
| Not confident at all | 7% |
What would trigger a review?
| Trigger | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Growth in headcount or overall spend | 17 (59%) |
| Budget overruns or loss of control | 10 (34%) |
| Introducing or scaling company cards | 6 (21%) |
| Audit or compliance pressure | 4 (14%) |
| Employee complaints or friction | 4 (14%) |
| No plans to review | 5 (17%) |
Concerns about new market entrants
| Concern | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Data security or compliance risk | 16 (55%) |
| Lack of local support or knowledge | 10 (34%) |
| Limited integrations with Australian systems | 10 (34%) |
| Vendor longevity | 5 (17%) |
| Unproven reliability at scale | 5 (17%) |
| Risk of disruption during implementation | 4 (14%) |
| No major concerns | 3 (10%) |
"Security that feels bank-grade. Financial control that's genuinely better than the bank. Compliance that makes accounting easier."
Financial Controller, WA
"True integration with finance apps (Xero)."
Head of Finance, NSW
"A clear improvement over our current process, particularly in approval workflows and visibility. Strong controls, reliable integrations, transparent pricing, and proven security would build trust."
Operations / Finance, QLD
"Integration with well established finance systems, transparency on data storage & management, compliance with Australian law."
Accountant in Practice, QLD
"Well-reviewed in the industry, and local support and sales willing to walk through setup and address any possible concerns."
Operations / Finance, NSW - 20–50 staff
9.3
Buying criteria, AI & pricing
Baseline AU requirements
| Requirement | % |
|---|---|
| Integration with Xero/MYOB | 83% |
| GST handling aligned with AU tax rules | 69% |
| AU privacy & data compliance | 55% |
| Support for Australian cards and banks | 48% |
| Local customer support | 34% |
| Data hosting in Australia | 24% |
What matters most when evaluating?
| Criteria | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Ease of use for employees | 13 (45%) |
| Integration with finance systems | 12 (41%) |
| Cost | 10 (34%) |
| Card controls and limits | 9 (31%) |
| Policy enforcement and controls | 7 (24%) |
| Real-time spend visibility | 7 (24%) |
| Approval workflows | 4 (14%) |
Deal-breakers
#1 deal-breaker
High cost (72%)
Cost sensitivity is even higher than the mid-market accounting survey
#2 deal-breaker
Too complex (52%)
Employee adoption is the gating factor - UX must be consumer-grade
#3 deal-breaker
Poor UX (38%)
Closely linked to complexity - reinforces the need for simple onboarding
Where could AI add value?
| AI use case | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Flagging unusual or risky spend | 17 (59%) |
| Automating receipt matching | 16 (55%) |
| Reducing manual review | 11 (38%) |
| Enforcing policy in real time | 10 (34%) |
| Not sure yet | 5 (17%) |
Monthly price per user expectations
| Price point | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| Under $5 | 9 | 31% |
| $5–$10 | 11 | 38% |
| $10–$20 | 2 | 7% |
| $20+ | 1 | 3% |
| Not sure | 4 | 14% |
69% expect to pay $10/user/month or less. ExpenseIn must price competitively against bank-bundled card tools (free) and Airwallex ($0 base). The value proposition needs to lean hard on time savings, policy automation, and receipt capture - not just "another card."
Survey analysis
12
References
All market sizing, vertical prioritisation, and strategic recommendations in this report are anchored to the following primary sources. Where public data was unavailable for specific segments, transparent assumptions and proxies are used and noted in the relevant sections.
12.1
Government & regulatory data
| Source | Data used | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Bureau of Statistics - Counts of Australian Businesses (CABEE), Jul 2021–Jun 2025 | National business counts (2,729,648 actively trading); turnover distribution context; CABEE scope rules | abs.gov.au → |
| Australian Government - Office of Impact Analysis | ABS-derived counts by turnover threshold (~50,854 businesses at A$10m+); retail sub-segment counts (grocery & fuel) | oia.pmc.gov.au → |
| Australian Taxation Office - Small business entity thresholds | Turnover band definitions (A$10m, A$50m) used as GTM segmentation anchors | ato.gov.au → |
| Australian Taxation Office - Demographics of large corporate groups | A$250m+ group turnover threshold; ~2,081 large corporate groups (enterprise exclusion guardrail) | ato.gov.au → |
| Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission - Annual Report 2024–25 | 63,667 registered charities at 30 June 2025 | acnc.gov.au → |
| Australian Institute of Health and Welfare - Philanthropy & charitable giving | Charity size-band definitions by annual revenue (large/extra-large thresholds) | aihw.gov.au → |
| Treasury Ministers - Mandating cash acceptance | Essential retail segmentation signal (fuel & grocery retailers; A$10m exemption thresholds) | treasury.gov.au → |
12.2
Industry data & vertical sizing
| Source | Data used | Link |
|---|---|---|
| IBISWorld - Construction in Australia | 410,856 construction businesses (base count for vertical sizing) | ibisworld.com → |
| IBISWorld - Health Services in Australia | ~166,000 health services businesses (broad definition) | ibisworld.com → |
| IBISWorld - Professional Services in Australia | ~280,750 professional services businesses | ibisworld.com → |
| IBISWorld - Fast Food & Takeaway Food Services | ~26,824 businesses (chain subset used for vertical sizing) | ibisworld.com → |
| IBISWorld - Number of Businesses (Economy) | Cross-industry business count benchmarks | ibisworld.com → |
| Master Builders Australia - Quarterly Industry Report Q3 2025 | ABS-derived construction turnover splits (1.7% at >A$10m); employment-size proportions | masterbuilders.com.au → |
| Infrastructure Australia - 2024 Infrastructure Market Capacity Report | Construction insolvency context and industry risk signals (urgency triggers) | infrastructureaustralia.gov.au → |
12.3
Competitor & ecosystem benchmarks
| Source | Data used | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Xero - ASX Market Release (May 2025) | 1.936m Australian subscribers at 31 Mar 2025; rising to ~2.016m at 30 Sep 2025. Context for cloud-ledger anchoring & integration expectations | asx.com.au → |
| MYOB - Acumatica platform evolution announcement | ANZ-localised ERP positioning; direct + reseller network model; channel structure signals | myob.com → |
| MYOB - Acumatica Developer Program | Sandbox access, app marketplace mechanics, partner onboarding structure | myob.com → |
| RSM Australia - Oracle NetSuite 2025 ANZ Growth Partner of the Year | SI partner positioning in ERP ecosystem; ANZ partner awards as channel structure evidence | rsm.global → |
Spend management competitor benchmarks (ExpenseIn)
| Source | Data used | Link |
|---|---|---|
| LinkedIn AU - Enterprise Expense Management Report | SAP Concur AU enterprise adoption positioning; market share benchmarks | linkedin.com → |
| TheirStack - AU company technology tracking | SAP Concur: 87 AU firms (highest tracked); Expensify: 24 AU firms | theirstack.com → |
| OFX - Top 10 Expense Management Software AU | Competitor ranking; OFX self-positioning; Expensify #3, SAP Concur #4 | ofx.com.au → |
| Airwallex - Top 8 AU Expense Management Tools | Airwallex AU market positioning; tool comparison benchmarks | airwallex.com.au → |
| ProSpend - 2026 AU Expense Management Guide | ProSpend AU market positioning; global spend management reference data | prospend.com → |
| ScaleSuite - AU SME Expense Comparison | Weel approval software positioning; Airwallex SME comparison data | scalesuite.com.au → |
| PointHacks - Archa Professional Card Guide | Archa niche rewards-driven card positioning in AU market | pointhacks.com.au → |
| Expert Market Research - Australia Total Spend Management Market | AUD 313M total spend management market baseline; manual process persistence data | expertmarketresearch.com.au → |
Public sources do not disclose competitor channel economics (exact margins, partner-sourced percentages) in a way that enables direct benchmarking. Competitor references in this report demonstrate channel structure, not quantitative mix. ExpenseIn competitor share estimates are synthesised from 2025–2026 Australian market reports, adoption tracking data (TheirStack, GetApp), and vendor self-positioning - they should be treated as directional indicators, not precise measurements.
Data gaps disclosure