The most useful way to compare three audit automation vendors is a single shared spreadsheet with identical rows for every vendor — functionality coverage by audit area, data security answers, pricing at the firm's actual volume, support commitments, and reference feedback — scored on the same scale and filled in on the same day as each demo or RFP response, because comparing vendors from memory a week after three separate sales calls reliably favours whichever vendor had the best presenter, not whichever product actually fits.
Why a shared sheet beats separate notes per vendor
Separate notes taken during each vendor's demo tend to follow that vendor's own presentation structure, which means the three sets of notes end up organised differently and hard to compare directly. A single sheet with fixed rows, filled in identically for each vendor as soon as the relevant information is available, forces every vendor to be judged against the same questions rather than against how well they answered the questions they chose to emphasise.
The structure of the sheet
| Category | Specific criterion | Scoring approach |
|---|---|---|
| Functionality | Coverage of each audit area the firm needs (list them explicitly) | Full / Partial / None, per area, not an overall score |
| Functionality | GSTR-2B/Tally support quality | Tested on the firm's own sample file, not the vendor's demo data |
| Security | Data residency, access control, AI training policy | Pass/fail against the firm's own security questionnaire |
| Pricing | Total annual cost at the firm's actual staff count and engagement volume | A single number per vendor, not a range |
| Pricing | Cost at double the firm's current volume | Tests how the pricing model scales, not just today's number |
| Support | Stated response time during Feb-March specifically | Hours, with contract reference |
| Implementation | Time from signature to first live engagement | Weeks, as committed in writing |
| References | Feedback from 2-3 comparable-size reference firms | Summarised theme, not just a yes/no |
| Roadmap | Credibility of claimed upcoming features | See companion article on evaluating roadmap claims |
How to run the process without it collapsing into impressions anyway
- 01Fill in each vendor's row immediately after their demo or RFP response, not days laterMemory of a sales conversation fades fast and tends to compress toward 'they seemed good' without the specifics.
- 02Have more than one person at the firm score independently before comparing notesA single scorer's impression of a presenter's confidence can quietly outweigh the actual content of the answers.
- 03Weight the categories before seeing any vendor's answers, not afterDeciding that pricing matters more than functionality after seeing which vendor is cheapest is a form of working backward from a preferred answer.
- 04Leave a row for anything a vendor refused or failed to answer clearlyA blank or evasive answer is itself a data point and shouldn't just disappear from the comparison.
A comparison that scores vendors only on what each one chose to emphasise in its own demo will systematically favour the vendor with the best presentation, not the best fit. The fixed-row structure exists specifically to prevent that.
Common practice, not a requirement
This exercise is more useful with three vendors than with one, even if the firm already has a preferred vendor in mind — a second and third comparison point, scored the same way, either confirms the preference with real evidence or surfaces a gap that a single evaluation would have missed.
This is practical guidance written for audit teams, not an authoritative statement of any standard or statute. Standards, forms and timelines change. Check the current text issued by the ICAI and the relevant authority before relying on anything here in an audit file.
Related resources
- Technology, data & AI in auditRFP questions for an audit automation vendor: a template to sendA document a firm can send to three vendors at once and get back answers that are actually comparable, not three different sales decks.
- Technology, data & AI in auditChoosing an audit automation vendor: a checklistThe questions that separate a vendor worth trusting with client data from one that merely demos well: security, what's computed versus generated, exit terms, pricing, and India-specific fit.
- Technology, data & AI in auditPer-seat vs. per-engagement audit software pricing: a worked deep-diveSame firm, same software, two pricing models — and the total cost can differ by a wide margin depending entirely on how many juniors touch each engagement.
- Technology, data & AI in auditWhat to ask an audit software vendor's reference clientsA reference call that only asks "are you happy with it" gets a polite yes almost every time. Here's what actually surfaces the real answer.
Free tools, no signup
Each one reads a file entirely in your browser — or, for two of them, just answers a few questions — and nothing is ever uploaded.
- Purchase register checkDuplicate payments, round-sum amounts, weekend-dated invoices, incomplete records.
- GSTR-2B reconcilerMatches your purchase register against GSTR-2B — missing invoices either side, amount mismatches.
- Bank reconciliation checkerMatches your cash book against a bank statement — what's outstanding on each side.
- Fixed asset register checkDuplicate asset codes, missing location or useful life, negative net book value.
- Payroll red-flag scannerBank accounts shared across employees, and records missing an ID, PAN or salary.
- CARO applicability checkerAnswer a few questions about the company and see which CARO 2020 clauses likely apply.
- MSME payment delay checkerMSME-flagged invoices paid — or still unpaid — beyond the 45-day Section 22 limit.
- Related-party transaction screenerTransactions above a threshold you set with no approval reference, grouped by counterparty.
- Depreciation useful life checkerCompares a useful life in use against the Schedule II, Part C indicative figure.
- Materiality calculatorOverall and performance materiality against PBT, revenue, assets or equity, with reasoning shown.
- Sample size calculatorStatistical sample size for a test of controls or a substantive test of detail.