The board wants AI investment. You own the budget, the forecast, and the history that decides where it goes. Sebastian puts every dollar made and spent on one graph, so finance stops reporting the news and starts making it.
Every department is being told to become AI-first. You fund it, measure it, and defend it to the board. That needs granular spend, current actuals, and a forecast that moves when the business does, not a quarterly reconstruction built by hand.
the same motion updates
Bank reconciliation
matched
Close status
advanced
Cash forecast
updated
Planning tools sit too high to answer what marketing spent on events this quarter, or what engineering burned on tokens to ship a release. Sebastian keeps transaction-level history and the plan on one graph. The answer is a drill-down, not a data request.
Unify accounting data with FP&A to drive your business.
Not two products stitched together. Your controller and your head of FP&A work from the same transactions, which is what removes the reconciliation between them.
Agents match transactions, draft evidenced journal entries, and tie out AP, AR, cash, and accruals continuously, so month-end is inspection instead of assembly, and the audit binder builds itself.
Planning reads the same data the close runs on, so the forecast updates the moment accounting lands, and the driver behind a variance is already prepared before the board meeting.
You are being asked to invest in AI without a way to measure what it returns. That is an uncomfortable place to sign a budget from. With spend, headcount, and outcomes on one graph, an AI initiative gets judged like any other investment: against actuals, by department, over time.
Raise Q3 opex +$1,847K: thirty-four hires land Aug 1 across three offices, and support software follows the seats.
Every figure opens to the contract, PO, invoice, or entry behind it, so a board number can be defended right down to the document.
drill to sourceAgents prepare and propose, while review, approval, and posting stay with the people who carry the accountability.
review-boundAccounting and planning read the same transactions and run the same calculations, so the board deck and the ledger cannot quietly disagree. Net Revenue means the same thing everywhere, computed on live transactions, not a cube.
no driftSebastian runs on top of the systems you already own, so your ledger, your checklist, and your policies all stay where they are.
non-disruptive80% less manual accounting
Agents do the matching, drafting, and tying out, so your team spends its time reviewing the work rather than producing it.
Every dollar, traceable
Spend and revenue open to the contract, PO, invoice, or entry behind them. Down to the document, in the board room.
Measured AI return
Judge an AI initiative the way you judge any investment: against actuals, by department, over time.
No migration
Your ledger stays the book of record. No rip-and-replace, no re-implementation, no retraining your team on a new system.
The AI Financial Data Graph, the integrations, and how agent work and human review fit together.
Governed forecast versions, parent diffs, and decision-report adoption for the plan of record.
Tenant isolation, encryption, access controls, and segregation of duties.
AI for accounting and FP&A on the ledger you already run. No migration. No rip and replace.