The Numeric vs FloQast vs Maxima decision starts with who prepares the accounting work. Two of these tools track and explain close work your team still builds. One prepares it.

If you have lived through a month-end close, you know where the days go: building journals in Excel, matching processor payouts to deposits and assembling reconciliations at 9 p.m. A checklist tells you what is late. It does not do the work.

This comparison examines preparation, matching, data capture, controls and scale across Maxima, Numeric and FloQast. It explains where Maxima pulls ahead and where the other two fit.

How the Platforms Were Evaluated: This comparison uses official platform documentation. The platforms were compared on close preparation depth, journal entry automation, matching, source-system data capture, ERP writeback, controls, implementation effort, pricing, and what work still remains with the accounting team.

Numeric vs FloQast vs Maxima at a glance

Compare Maxima, Numeric and FloQast by what each platform does with close work: prepares it, explains it or tracks it.

Maxima fits teams that need journals, matching and reconciliations prepared for review. Numeric fits simpler cash-led closes. FloQast fits checklist-led close coordination.

How Maxima, Numeric and FloQast handle close prep

The real difference shows up when close work moves from planning to preparation. 

Maxima sits at levels 3 to 4 of the close maturity curve, where work is prepared and reviewed by exception. Numeric improves tracking with AI assists. FloQast coordinates accountant-prepared work through a compliance checklist.

1. Maxima

What it does

Maxima is an AI-native accounting platform built to prepare the work, rather than only track it. Agents pull activity from banks, payroll, billing and the ERP, then prepare journals, formula-intact workpapers, transaction matching, reconciliations and flux. Accountants review every output with transaction-level evidence. Nothing posts without approval.

Every implementation includes AI engineering customization led by former controllers and Big Four auditors. Maxima encodes your SOPs, mappings, thresholds, approval rules, materiality and reviewer preferences, then applies them consistently across entities and periods rather than forcing a generic template.

Maxima reports processing more than $500B in transaction volume.

Pros

• Broad preparation coverage: journals, schedules, matching, reconciliations and flux in one connected platform

• Three-way matching beyond cash, with exceptions carried forward and line-level evidence

• Controls that carry through to native ERP posting, including segregation of duties, maker-checker and immutable logs

Cons

• Source mapping and policy configuration still need accounting attention, and human review stays in the workflow by design

• Pricing requires a scoped quote

• Smaller G2 review base (21 reviews), an honest tradeoff against FloQast's 1,415

What to verify before buying

• Source mapping and policy configuration still need accounting attention, and human review stays in the workflow by design

• Pricing requires a scoped quote

• Smaller G2 review base (21 reviews), an honest tradeoff against FloQast's 1,415

G2 Rating: 4.8/5

Customer Review: 

Mervyn H., Senior Accounting Manager, wrote: “So far, we’ve automated full-cycle month-end close cash accounting, commissions accounting, and investments accounting.”

2. Numeric

What it does

Numeric is a more polished FloQast: project management for close with AI features layered on. It explains flux, surfaces insights without recommendations, and accelerates reporting and review.

Cash matching is a strength, including cash-specific one-to-many and many-to-many matches and cash-related JE posting to NetSuite. In the compared R2R offering, JE automation is cash-only. Numeric does not prepare other JEs end to end, transform source data, reconcile non-cash transactions at scale, support non-cash three-way matching, produce agent-built workpapers or offer custom query fields for flux.

Numeric is not agentic. It ships out of the box, with no implementation-level AI engineering customization. When your accounting fits the template, that is a real advantage: you get running fast and stay running.

The cost appears when the template does not fit. If payroll rules, entity mappings, materiality thresholds and intercompany policies diverge from it, your accounting team absorbs the gap as manual work around the tool.

Pros

• Quick setup for its close use cases, with a G2 average under one month

• Useful variance insight through flexible reports and AI-drafted flux

• Solid cash exception handling across complex cash match types

Cons

• Its R2R close overlay has no agent-built working papers, no non-cash three-way matching and no custom query fields for flux; it lacks the depth and automation of Maxima

• JE automation stops at cash; broader automation sits in a different Numeric product scope

• Younger vendor with 65 G2 reviews and narrower enterprise ERP coverage

What to verify before buying

• Its R2R close overlay has no agent-built working papers, no non-cash three-way matching and no custom query fields for flux; it lacks the depth and automation of Maxima

• JE automation stops at cash; broader automation sits in a different Numeric product scope

• Younger vendor with 65 G2 reviews and narrower enterprise ERP coverage

G2 Rating: 4.8/5

3. FloQast

What it does

FloQast is the established name. It says it serves more than 3,500 companies and offers close checklists, reconciliations, controls and ISO 42001 certification.

Core FloQast is a compliance checklist for accountant-performed work in spreadsheets, rather than a preparation platform. It has no task or subtask dependencies and no event-driven handoffs. It cannot ingest directly from upstream transaction source systems, so you export the ERP trial balance and upload it. It cannot post JEs or write fluxes itself.

Keep core close and Transform separate. Transform is an optional, separately packaged add-on. AI generates a Python script at configuration; that script then runs fixed, deterministic logic with no reasoning during the run. Any variability or ambiguity forces reconfiguration.

The generated Python is hidden from users, so neither the script nor its logic is auditable. Transform has failed in production for many customers and can require lengthy implementation for limited workflow automation.

Pros

• Familiar checklist coordination that suits Excel-heavy teams

• Broad ERP fit, including NetSuite, Sage Intacct, SAP and Workday

• Structured ownership, sign-off and review

Cons

• Core close tracks accountant-performed work in spreadsheets; it does not prepare journals, workpapers or reconciliations, and has no task dependencies or event-driven handoffs

• Automation requires separately packaged and scoped offerings

• G2 reports a two-month implementation and 11-month ROI, and pricing is opaque and quote-only

What to verify before buying

• Core close tracks accountant-performed work in spreadsheets; it does not prepare journals, workpapers or reconciliations, and has no task dependencies or event-driven handoffs

• Automation requires separately packaged and scoped offerings

• G2 reports a two-month implementation and 11-month ROI, and pricing is opaque and quote-only

G2 Rating: 4.6/5

Financial close features: what accountants still have to prepare

Every vendor in this comparison now markets AI: FloQast markets agents, and Numeric markets transaction matching. On day three of close, the useful question is what your team still has to build from scratch.

Journal entry preparation, posting and working papers

For journal entries, compare how many arrive drafted, supported and ready for approval with how many your staff still builds in Excel at 9 p.m. Whether a tool merely touches journal entries is not the deciding question.

Maxima

• A payroll accrual starts with the register pulled from ADP or Rippling. Maxima's deterministic engine applies your formulas, builds a formula-intact workpaper, validates totals, routes the entry for approval and posts to the ERP, including NetSuite.

• Judgment-heavy work, such as PO-backed accruals, runs through Max, the accounting agent. Max reads SOPs and open-PO reports, collects business-owner input in Slack and pauses on outliers.

• Max holds conversations, reads PDFs, contracts and non-English documents, and makes judgments during the run. It resolves "Erica B" vs "Erica Bennett" using HRIS context and pings the preparer in Slack when unsure. It proactively asks people for missing data, and you can prepare work by prompting it.

• The deterministic engine runs rule-based JE transformations from step 1 to step 4 with policy-bound logic and validation checks. Every entry still needs human approval before it posts.

• AI engineering customization in every implementation means agents build entries to your policies, memo standards and existing formats.

Numeric

• Numeric drafts cash-related entries and batch-posts them into NetSuite, removing real cash-coding work.

• JE automation stops at cash. Numeric does not prepare other JEs end to end or transform source data, so payroll, accruals, allocations and intercompany entries remain preparation work in the R2R overlay. Your accountants still build exactly the entries Maxima prepares for them.

• Numeric is not agentic and ships out of the box, with no working paper builder. If your payroll rules or allocation logic differ from its template, there is no implementation-level customization to encode them. Your team carries that logic by hand.

FloQast

• Core FloQast tracks journals accountants prepare in spreadsheets against a compliance checklist. It cannot post JEs itself.

• Optional Transform generates a Python script at configuration, then runs fixed, deterministic logic with no in-run reasoning. That is the same limit Maxima's deterministic engine has when deployed alone. Maxima pairs it with Max.

• When reality stops matching the script, such as "Erica B" vs "Erica Bennett," a contract, a non-English bank statement or a question for a preparer, Transform cannot adapt. You reconfigure it. The hidden Python means you cannot audit the script or its logic, and Transform has failed in production for many customers.

• Configured agents for named tasks differ from Maxima's connected preparation, where matching outputs feed entries and entries feed reconciliations.

Account reconciliations and transaction matching

Matching exposes the limits of volume. Ten thousand processor payouts batching into a few hundred deposits is a different problem from a bank-to-GL tie-out, and non-cash accounts are where most tools stop. 

Automating one close task can still leave the accountant rebuilding context in the next.

Maxima

• Cash, processor and GL records flow into continuous reconciliations across cash, credit card, deferred revenue, fixed assets and payroll.

• Maxima supports one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many and three-way matching beyond cash. Here, three-way means three accounting data sources, such as GL, Stripe and internal billing, rather than PO receipt matching.

• Unreconciled items carry forward with lineage, reconciling entries are proposed, and manual matches can become permanent rules.

• The output of one module becomes the input of the next. Data comes in and matching runs. The match creates the entry, which feeds the reconciliation. The completed reconciliation updates close status and flux, while JE automation and subledgers continue feeding the loop.

The reconciliation arrives continuously fed and already evidenced, rather than as a worksheet someone fills at month-end.

Numeric

• Numeric provides substantial cash automation, with complex match types within cash.

• Numeric lacks three-way matching beyond cash and high-volume non-cash reconciliation. Processor, payroll and deferred revenue tie-outs therefore remain in spreadsheets, consuming close days.

• Good fit when cash is the entire matching problem.

FloQast

• Matching breadth, volume and match rates fall short of Maxima's, and core FloQast cannot ingest the underlying transactions directly.

• A better reconciliation screen does not remove reconciliation work. FloQast's strength is the worksheet where the reconciliation gets completed and controlled, but the matching, journals and support behind it still come from preparers or separately configured automation. Without upstream automation, the reconciliation is a digital worksheet someone fills at month-end.

• Maxima offers plug-and-play account reconciliations built specifically for FloQast customers. You keep the checklist and hand the reconciliation preparation to agents, with transaction-level data behind every tie-out.

Source-system data capture and ERP writeback

Where data enters determines the context available to the tool. When the cycle starts at the ERP balance, the transaction-level story behind that balance is already flattened.

Maxima

• Proprietary agents capture data from banks, payroll and billing upstream of the ERP, before it enters systems of record, using APIs, file feeds, SFTP and watched folders.

• Maxima runs a closed loop: source data comes in, the work is performed, entries post natively to the ERP under controls, data flows back out and variances are written. That is continuously performed accounting work, rather than a generic "continuous close" label for continuous tracking.

• Policy-native entry generation is proven at intercompany and multi-currency complexity.

• ERP coverage: major ERPs plus industry-specific ERPs over SFTP, which matters in mid-market deployments.

Numeric

• Numeric's R2R cycle starts at ERP and subledger collection. By then, transaction context is flattened into the GL, so workflows that depend on source detail cannot be automated. Maxima captures that context upstream, before the ERP, and can automate those workflows.

• Numeric has no equivalent third-party SFTP, and it is not on its roadmap, while Maxima offers SFTP for industry-specific ERPs and third-party systems. If your ERP or billing system lacks a suitable API, those workflows stay manual. That is common in mid-market stacks.

• ERP coverage: centers on mainstream cloud ERPs such as NetSuite and lacks that SFTP path.

FloQast

• Core FloQast cannot ingest directly from upstream transaction source systems. You export the ERP trial balance and upload it, so the checklist starts after the data is already flattened.

• No feed becomes completed accounting work in core close; it supports visibility, or a separately configured Transform automation.

• ERP coverage: a broad range, including NetSuite, Sage Intacct, SAP and Workday.

Example: Numeric and Maxima on Sage Intacct

On Sage Intacct, Numeric works from trial-balance-level data. Maxima works from transaction-level data. The difference shows up in five places:

1. Flux explanations: Numeric explains that a balance moved. Maxima ties the movement to individual vendors and transactions.

2. Matching: Maxima matches transactions against banks, payroll and processors. A trial balance has no transactions to match.

3. Account reconciliations: Maxima reconciles balances to source detail, line by line.

4. Automation: Maxima prepares and posts the entry. Numeric stops at insight outside cash.

5. Audit trail: Maxima's trail runs from the balance through the JE to the individual source transaction.

Numeric can see what happened to the balance. Maxima can see what happened underneath the balance and take action on it.

Flux analysis and close status visibility

Visibility matters when you are chasing status. It matters less when the checklist already knows a reconciliation is complete because the work has actually been done.

Maxima

• Agents write variance explanations from the prepared work, with transaction and vendor drill-down.

• Custom query fields for flux, full FSLI views, duplicate JE detection and oversized transaction flags.

• The close checklist updates automatically from agent outputs: posted entries, completed reconciliations, approved flux.

Numeric

• Flexible reports, transaction monitors and AI-drafted flux are genuine strengths.

• Numeric surfaces and explains variances without recommendations. It accelerates reporting and review but has no custom query fields for flux.

• Explaining a variance is different from preparing the non-cash accounting work behind it. Numeric surfaces the flux, then your team still builds the entries and workpapers that caused it. Maxima's agents write the explanation from work they already prepared.

FloQast

• Core FloQast cannot write fluxes. Its AI flux is limited, rigid and surface-level, nothing like Maxima's customizable, sliced-and-diced reporting.

• Checklist visibility is valuable when coordination is the bottleneck.

• With no event-driven handoffs, status still depends on preparers stopping work to update the tracker. In Maxima, reconciliations feed flux directly.

Review approvals, SOX controls and audit evidence

Every vendor shows an approval record. Ask what your auditor can re-perform, starting from the posted entry and walking back to source.

Maxima

• Segregation of duties, role-based permissions, policy checks, required reviewer approval and immutable logs, enforced architecturally.

• Each output carries source inputs, calculations, exceptions, decisions and approvals, and the trail is fully exportable.

• SOX-aligned controls with SOC 1 Type II, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001; software supports compliance but never replaces your control design.

• Stronger SOX permissions, policy-bound deterministic logic and validation checks give Maxima system-level accuracy and a stronger audit posture.

• The evidence chain maps to SOX 404 and AS 2201: who prepared it, what they relied on and who approved it.

• Cascading-rework economics: an error caught at review costs a re-prepared schedule, entry and reconciliation. Maxima validates before review, moving you from level 3 (prepared-work) to level 4 (exception-based).

• One connected platform compounds value: data, transaction-level context, workflows and agents share one lineage.

Numeric

• Preparer-reviewer cash workflows with audit trails.

• An approval record is not an evidence chain across original sources, calculations, exceptions and posted outputs.

• Control coverage follows its cash-centered automation scope.

FloQast

• Mature close-control workflows and ISO 42001 certification.

• Compare the evidence available for a completed agent-prepared entry, not certification badges.

• For human-prepared work, evidence is only as complete as what the preparer attached.

Multi-entity scale and workflow flexibility

Simple setups hide the differences. At 15 entities, four currencies and daily intercompany activity, the gap between tracking work and preparing it becomes a headcount issue.

Maxima

• Dual engines: a deterministic engine for rule-based volume and Max for judgment-heavy, ambiguous work.

• Policy-native entry generation proven at intercompany and multi-currency complexity, with secondary book support.

• Included AI engineering customization adapts agents as you add entities, currencies and intercompany rules.

Numeric

• A clean experience for simpler setups.

• Numeric's close overlay does not prepare non-cash work. As entities and currencies grow, that preparation remains manual. Numeric is not agentic and ships out of the box; entity mappings, materiality thresholds and intercompany policies rarely fit a template as you scale.

• Numeric separately markets an ERP-replacement scope; evaluate it as a different product.

FloQast

• Strong enterprise adoption and configurable no-code agents.

• The core checklist model coordinates human-prepared outputs, so more entities mean more checklist rows.

• Maxima's agents continuously prepare those outputs instead.

Pricing, implementation timelines and support

All three platforms quote custom pricing. Compare the scope included in each quote, rather than the headline number.

Maxima

• Quote-based platform fee plus modules, sized by volume, entities and system complexity.

• Vendor-stated deployment in weeks; no G2 implementation or payback average exists to compare.

• Support: accounting-led implementation from former Big Four practitioners plus included AI engineering customization.

Numeric

• G2 averages: under one month to implement and three-month ROI, as review-based indicators rather than promises.

• A third-party source lists a $30-per-user Essentials starting price, while Numeric's pricing page tailors plans to volume and seats. Another third-party report estimates $20K to $80K annually.

• Support: highly rated by G2 reviewers.

FloQast

• G2 averages: two months to implement and 11-month ROI.

• Custom pricing with no per-user fees; separate close and Transform scope in the quote. A third-party report estimates $25K to $100K annually.

• Support: a team made up of former accountants.

Maxima's vendor-reported production outcomes

A feature row shows that a tool can do something. The harder test is keeping accounting preparation accurate, governed and auditable across recurring workflows, month after month. These are the figures Maxima reports from live customer closes.

• $500B+ in transaction volume processed

• 500M+ transactions handled by agents

• 250+ agentic workflows running in production

• Big Four-audited closes on work the agents prepared

• Scale AI: close 2 to 3 days faster, with 98%+ cash reconciliation

• Rippling: cash reconciliation time cut in half

• Zendesk: 25 entities closed without adding accounting headcount

These are vendor-reported outcomes, not G2 averages. Read them as evidence of repeatability, not peak performance.

500M+ transactions and 250+ production workflows mean the same agents run every month, not once in a demo. Big Four-audited closes show the evidence held up when someone re-performed the work.

Scale AI, Rippling and Zendesk show the result across different pain points: a faster close, cash reconciliation time cut in half, and 25 entities closed without added headcount. The test for any preparation tool is whether month twelve looks like month one.

Which financial close platform should you choose?

Numeric fits fast setup on simpler environments, and FloQast fits checklist-led teams on large ERPs. As entities, currencies and non-cash volume grow, complexity favors Maxima.

Choose Maxima when preparation is the bottleneck

If your close calendar is dominated by building, not reviewing, Maxima changes the shape of the work. Your preparers become first-level reviewers.

• Multi-entity or SOX-aligned teams spending close days building journals, transaction matching and assembling reconciliations

• Example: overnight, bank and processor activity generates hundreds of coded entries, flags exceptions and produces supported reconciliations before your reviewer opens their inbox

• Teams with industry-specific ERPs or third-party systems that need SFTP

Tradeoff: your team must define policies, connect sources and review prepared work; Maxima does not substitute for accounting judgment.

Choose Numeric when financial insight is the imperative

Numeric suits teams that want modern visibility without a heavy project.

• A leaner team seeking fast close visibility, and flexible flux reporting

• Environments where speed of implementation and highly rated support matter most

• Mainstream cloud ERP setups, particularly NetSuite

Tradeoff: its compared overlay does not deliver agent-prepared non-cash workpapers or three-way matching beyond cash.

Choose FloQast when close coordination leads

FloQast suits teams whose problem is ownership and sign-off, not preparation volume.

• A team that wants established checklist ownership, reconciliations, review controls and broad ERP compatibility

• Organizations on SAP, Workday or Sage Intacct that value a large customer base

• Teams willing to scope Transform for targeted agent workflows

Tradeoff: if accountants are losing days to preparation rather than tracking, coordination alone does not remove that workload.

Switching between Numeric, FloQast and Maxima

Most switches are not driven by features on a slide. They happen after a few closes, when the team realizes the hard work has not moved.

Why Teams switch close platforms

• Checklists do not remove the preparation workload

• Cost does not match the value delivered

• Implementation takes too long

• Limits appear as entities and currencies grow

What migration looks like

A big-bang cutover is not necessary. FloQast customers can adopt Maxima's plug-and-play reconciliations first, then expand from there.

• Connect sources and the GL

• Configure policies, thresholds and controls

• Start with your most broken workflow, usually cash or payroll

Teams that have already switched

FloQast to Maxima is not theoretical. Rippling, Scale AI and SpotOn replaced FloQast with Maxima to get preparation, not just tracking.

• Scale AI: close 2 to 3 days faster, with 98%+ cash reconciliation

• Rippling: cash reconciliation time cut in half

• SpotOn: moved its close off FloQast onto Maxima

Rippling, Scale AI and SpotOn ran the checklist, then chose agents that do the work. Their switches support preparation over coordination, rather than leaving that comparison theoretical. Numeric also says many of its customers come from FloQast, another signal that some teams eventually outgrow close coordination alone and seek deeper automation.

FAQ’s

Can Maxima work alongside FloQast or replace Its close checklist?

Yes. Maxima can work alongside FloQast or replace its close checklist. Its Close Command Center updates from actual agent outputs, and its reconciliations plug into teams already using FloQast. If you need preparation and close visibility in one connected financial close workflow, consolidate onto Maxima.

Does Numeric automate journal entries beyond cash?

No. In the compared R2R overlay, Numeric’s JE automation is cash-only, including posting to NetSuite. It starts from ERP and subledger data, so it cannot transform source data or prepare other entries end to end. Numeric separately markets ERP replacement; evaluate that as a different purchase.

Is FloQast only a checklist tool?

No. Core FloQast is a compliance checklist for accountant-performed work in spreadsheets, not a preparation platform. It has no task dependencies or event-driven handoffs, cannot ingest upstream source systems, and cannot post JEs or write fluxes itself. Optional Transform adds hidden, fixed Python logic, while Maxima prepares connected journals, workpapers, matching and reconciliations.

What should a multi-entity controller compare beyond close days?

Compare non-cash transaction volume, currency and intercompany workflows, source-system coverage including SFTP, approval segregation, and whether support is re-performable after posting. For multi-entity financial close software, those factors decide whether the tool scales with you. Treat vendor-reported outcomes and review-site averages separately before committing.

Conclusion

A faster month-end close starts with identifying what is slowing your team down. The choice between Numeric, FloQast, and Maxima depends on whether your biggest challenge is preparation, visibility, or coordination.

Maxima is built for recurring preparation across multiple sources, entities, and currencies. It delivers complete, review-ready close packets through exception-based workflows. 

Numeric focuses on tracking, AI-assisted insights, and cash management, making it suitable for teams that value a simpler setup and fast implementation. FloQast coordinates human-prepared work through established checklist ownership across a broad ERP footprint.

The difference comes down to how much work each platform takes off your team's plate. Knowing what remains open is useful, but receiving completed, review-ready accounting work can give your team valuable close days back. Numeric helps teams see what happened to a balance, while Maxima goes deeper into the underlying activity and enables teams to act on it. 

For finance teams looking to reduce recurring manual preparation, explore Maxima to see how its workflows could fit into your month-end close process.