Software owns no outcome. Outsourcing adds no speed.
Neoflo runs the finance workflow and answers for the result. That's a promise you can only make if you're willing to be paid on it.
Neoflo charges per successfully processed unit.
The problem
Two ways to fix finance operations, and both stop halfway.
Software automates steps. It makes each task faster. The outcome stays with you. If the invoice doesn't post, that's still your problem.
Outsourcing adds people. It takes the work away and adds nothing to the speed. The underlying process is unchanged. You have bought hands, not throughput.
Neoflo runs the workflow and answers for the result.
Everything else on this page is what it takes to say that sentence honestly.
The decision I would put first
Which number the whole company is judged on.
Three candidates were available. They aren't equivalent. The one you pick decides what the org optimises for, and what the customer hears.
Cost per document
Easiest to instrument. Means nothing to a finance director, who doesn't budget in cents per page.
Touchless rate
Flattering and internal. It describes how the machine feels rather than what the team got back.
Straight-through processing
It converts directly into the buyer's own ROI case. An AP team sizes its savings in people, not in cents per page.
Cycle time is held as equally important. So it's really a two-metric frame, not a single north star. That's more honest than most north-star stories. It exists to stop the first number being bought with the second.
Pick the metric the customer already uses to think about their own problem. It beats the one that's easiest to measure. It's also harder. You inherit whatever that metric distorts.
A straight-through invoice never touches a person. So it records a cycle time of zero. Those zeros land in the average.
So the better the system gets, the faster the reported average time falls, for a reason that has nothing to do with anyone working faster.
The fix is to report the two populations separately. What was automated, and how long the rest actually took. An average across both measures nothing.
Owning both halves beats defending the number. Why I chose it, and what it distorted.
Controls
What the platform enforces, and what is still roadmap.
What it enforces today is the approval matrix. It's genuinely configurable. By entity, by department, by amount, by GL code, by vendor. Tolerance rules sit alongside it, and every change carries full version history.
That's the part worth describing precisely. Configurable approval routing is what an AP function actually operates day to day.
Maker-checker and segregation of duties are on the roadmap. They aren't enforced behaviour today. This page won't claim they are.
Segregation of duties is a control, not a feature. It's the first thing a controller or an auditor asks about, and describing a roadmap item in the present tense is how a product loses an audit conversation. The distinction is worth the sentence it costs.
The compliance surface
What has to be true before finance will let you near the ledger.
SOC 2 Type II. Aligned to ISO 27001.
GDPR and CCPA.
AES-256.
Seven years and more of audit history.
US, EU, APAC, and on premises.
None of this wins a deal. All of it loses one. It's the floor. For a finance platform, the floor is most of the build.
The other half of the job
There was no product function, so I built one.
Fourth employee at the company, and its first product hire. Product and design didn't exist as a function. So the job was never only shipping a product.
Hired and now manage five direct reports. Two product managers, two product designers, one QA.
And built the process the work runs on. PRD, design review, UAT and release, across an engineering org of roughly twenty. That's the org the process runs on, not an org I manage. The difference matters enough to state.
Being first means the deliverable isn't a feature. It's a way of working that survives you.
What isn't settled
The part that makes the rest believable.
The controls surface as sold describes four separate roles. The build today doesn't enforce separation. Not between whoever resolves an invoice and whoever posts it.
The likely reconciliation is that one describes the configurable surface and the other describes enforced behaviour, which is common and isn't the same as false. It still has to be said out loud, before an auditor says it for you.
Covered above, and it's unresolved rather than fixed. Until the two populations are reported separately, the average improves for the wrong reason.
One headline percentage on the company site could not be traced. Not to whoever produced it, nor to the measurement behind it. It's deliberately absent from this page. A number nobody can source is worth less than the sentence it sits in.
Live integrations cover a specific set of systems, with others on the roadmap. "Connects to your ERP" is true of the ones that are built. A fair question is which.
