The Hidden Cost of Siloed AP & AR Tools: A CFO's Guide to Unified Cash Management

Even when you are running AP with one platform, AR with another, and attempting to balance cash position somewhere in between with a spreadsheet, you already know that something has gone bad. You simply cannot be aware of the extent it is costing you.

‍

This is the figure that ought to make you shiver: U.S. companies are currently sitting on $1.7 trillion in trapped working capital, as The Hackett Group 2025 Working Capital Survey shows. That's not a rounding error. That is money tied up in ineffective AR operations, slow payable cycles, and, most importantly, the lack of visibility that occurs between AP and AR silos.

‍

This blog is aimed at Controllers, AP Managers, and Accounting Directors who are considering the cost of the technology they currently use and are looking to have a direct answer on what fragmented AP/AR is really costing us and what a more efficient setup would look like.

The Fragmentation Problem Is Bigger Than You Think

Fragmentation was not selected by most of the mid-market finance teams. It happened incrementally. You have introduced a best-of-breed AP tool to process invoice volume. AR either remained in your ERP or received its own platform. Projecting lives either in an Excel or a separate dashboard. Banking is elsewhere. Both decisions were logical at that moment.

‍

However, together, you have created a cash management structure with no single system being able to provide the simplest possible CFO answer to the most fundamental question: “How much cash are we going to have in 30 days?”

‍

The survey of the EY Global DNA of the Treasurer Survey (N=978, 2025) indicates that only 17% of the finance teams possess total near-real-time cash visibility. The others are operating on lag, estimation, and hope.

‍

In the meantime, 44% of U.S. B2B invoices are currently overdue, and 3% are being written off as bad debt, mostly invisible at the time when AR data exists in a different tool than your AP promises.

‍

The fact that your team is poor at their jobs does not mean that the system is broken. It's broken by design.

The 6 Hidden Costs of Separate AP and AR Tools

1. The Cash Visibility Dead Zone

Unless AP and AR communicate, you do not get a picture of the cash flow; you get two half pictures that do not coincide. Your AP system: When and what you owe. The AR system is informed of what and when it is due. Because the systems are not simultaneously aware, you budget with incomplete information.

‍

The reality on the ground: your team is now reconciling in spreadsheets, extracting exports out of two platforms, and cross-referencing timing, normally days after the fact.

‍

This dead zone is expensive. When only 17% of finance leaders have near-real-time visibility, the 83% operating in the dark are making payment timing decisions, credit decisions, and financing decisions based on stale data.

‍

The Monday morning cost: A distribution company that takes 400 invoices/month and the AP spends $8M/month on its AP would actually have a price of 300-500K in unnecessary credit utilization in the short-term price because its AR collections position is not available at the time the AP payment runs are made.

2. Wasted Labour and Duplicate Workflows

According to HighRadius, 68% of companies still process invoices manually, costing, on average, $15-$20 per invoice compared to $2-$3 per invoice when using automated invoicing teams. It is a 59% cost difference that scales.

‍

In the case of a manufacturing company that handles 500 invoices monthly:

Manual cost: $7,500–$10,000/month = $90,000–$120,000/year.
Automated cost: $1,000–$1,500/month = $12,000–$18,000/year.

The invoice itself is not the only waste of labor. With AP and AR on different tools, this is twice the reconciliation work: exporting data out of each system, reformatting it, and then manually creating the view that would be created automatically in a unified platform.

‍

According to Ardent Partners' 2025 benchmarking data, on average, invoices require 9.2 days to be processed, and 32.6% of invoices are processed by humans with no human touch. Best-in-class teams achieve 49.20 percent touchless processing; the difference again is virtually in line with integration maturity.

3. Inaccurate Cash Forecasting

This is the situation that every Controller knows. It's Thursday. Your CFO requests the 30-day cash position in time to have a board call on Friday morning. You are familiar with your AP requirements from your AP platform. You are roughly aware of what AR will be required of your ERP. However, the real net position, considering the likely time of collection, payment hold, any early discounts offered by banks, and bank balance, will take a drawing out of at least three sources and the construction of a model, to which you will append the caveat "as of Tuesday's data."

‍

It is not a problem of forecasting. It's an integration problem.

‍

In the case of AP payment timing and AR collection being the same, your forecast represents reality. When they are apart, it is an indication of two distinct realities that your group is carefully juggling by the deadline.

‍

The EY 2025 survey found that only 38% of finance professionals fully trust their own transactional data, and 22% of them mention the inconsistent data across systems as one of the top 3 obstacles to cash visibility. The two issues share the same root cause: fragmented tools.

‍

The downstream cost is real. Late invoice discounts are on average 2% per invoice. In the case of a firm where AP spends $10M annually, avoiding half of the open early-pay discounts would cost the company $100,000 per annum in savings that are lost as a direct strike to the margin that most CFOs would have little visibility of, since the AP system does not know which of your ARs will be collected in that particular week.

4. Compliance and Fraud Risk

Separate tools imply separate control situations, and that is a compliance and audit risk most finance departments underestimate until it is too late.

‍

Who is reconciling that the net obligation presents your actual contract terms when an invoice is approved in your AP system, and a credit memo is issued in your AR system? Do you have an AP platform that is aware that a credit has already been posted in your AR module when a vendor provides a duplicate invoice? In the majority of fragmented arrangements, it is not in real time.

‍

Approximately 39% of invoices contain errors, including incorrect amounts, missing data, or mismatched POs. In a unified system, these errors manifest themselves at the entry point. In a fragmented setup, they often surface at month-end or after payment has already been sent.

‍

The risk of fraud is also high. The vulnerability of vendor payment fraud actually plays right into a gap like the one that exists between siloed AP and AR systems: duplicate vendor records, unverified vendor bank account changes, and approval processes that lack cross-verification of open AR balances or contractual terms.

5. Vendor and Customer Relationship Friction

Fragmented tools create fragmented experiences for the people you pay and the people who pay you.

‍

On the AP side, late or ineffective payments caused by a lack of visibility of cash would hurt relationships with suppliers and undermine the goodwill you require to negotiate better terms or receive an early-pay discount. Processing challenges cause damaged supplier relationships in 21% of cases, not due to laxity on the part of teams, but because disjointed systems encourage delays that hinder communication.

‍

On the AR side: 42% of U.S. companies that experience late customer payments struggle to meet their own financial obligations as a result. And when your AR team cannot view your AP obligations in the same light, they are making collection escalation decisions without having the full picture of the cash urgency, and are sending generic reminders when they need to be escalating.

‍

An integrated platform shifts the balance on either side. The AP teams can time the payments strategically on the basis of confidence in AR collection. AR teams are able to prioritize live AP commitments. Neither is flying blind.

6. Scalability Ceiling and Talent Drain

The most hidden price of disjointed AP/AR tools is the effect they have on your staff in the long term.

‍

When the finance experts spend their days in a manual process of reconciling exports of two systems, tracking PO matching exceptions that slip between systems, and recreating cash models in Excel every week, they leave. Or they burn out. Or they cease to do the strategic work you in fact hired them to do.

‍

93% of mid-sized firms plan to increase AP/AR automation investment in the next 12 months, but only a fraction have integrated AP and AR under a single data model. The disconnect between the idea and the implementation is nearly always a problem of vendor selection: businesses purchase point solutions for each operation and expect integration to take care of the rest.

‍

It won't. Inter-vendor systems are fragile, costly to maintain, and will never keep up with your work process.

‍

This dilemma is further worsened by the scalability issue, which increases with volume. A team that had to process 300 invoices/month in a fragmented setup might get away with it. The manual reconciliation load is a hiring requirement at 800. At 1,500, it is a structural obstacle to tight schedules, not a capacity issue, but a systems issue.

What "Unified Cash Management" Actually Means

We should first of all get straight to the problem, since the word “unified” is bandied about.

‍

Unified cash management does not imply applying the AP module of one vendor and the AR module of another vendor and terming it as such. Periodic sync, one-directional data flow, and bolt-on APIs do not generate a unified cash model. They develop a slightly better-linked form of the same fragmentation problem.

‍

Real unified cash management would imply:

Bidirectional data flow between AP and AR management in real-time. AP sees the price of payment timing that is informed by the AR side by the status of the collections, and vice versa.
A single cash forecast model that draws live off both AP obligations and AR receivables without any manual export/import cycles.
Shared vendor/customer master data between systems, no duplicate records, and no system-to-system reconciliation.
Embedded banking that bridges the gap between your operating account, payables, and receivables in a single view.
ERP-native integration is not a layer on top of your ERP, but is a system that reads and writes directly to the source of truth of your ERP.

The brief form "unified" implies that your team will be able to respond to the question "What do we have in terms of cash in 30 days?" in real-time, one-screen, no-spreadsheet access.

‍

The CFO Evaluation Framework: Separate Tools vs. Unified Platform

Score your current setup in this table in an honest manner. When you are assessing the vendors, request each vendor to demonstrate the way they manage each row.

Capability	Separate AP and AR Tools	Unified Platform (e.g., Centime)
Real-time cash position	❌ Requires manual export/reconciliation	✅ Live, single-screen view
AP-to-AR data flow	❌ Periodic sync or manual	✅ Bidirectional, real-time
Cash flow forecasting	❌ Built in Excel or standalone tool	✅ AI-driven, embedded, auto-updated
ERP integration depth	⚠️ API-based, often one-directional	✅ Native ERP sync (NetSuite, Sage Intacct, QBO, Dynamics 365 BC)
3-way PO matching	⚠️ AP-only, no AR context	✅ Full PO match with AR visibility
Early payment discount capture	❌ Missed due to AR timing lag	✅ Timed to AR collection confidence
Fraud & duplicate invoice detection	⚠️ Within AP only	✅ Cross-functional, full cycle
Month-end close speed	❌ Slow; requires cross-system reconciliation	✅ Faster single data source of truth
Audit trail completeness	⚠️ Split across two systems	✅ End-to-end, single system
Vendor contract: cost	❌ 2 vendor contracts + integration overhead	✅ Single vendor, lower total cost
Scalability at volume (1,000+ invoices/mo)	❌ Reconciliation load grows with volume	✅ Scales with automation, not headcount

If/then decision framework:

If you have over 5 business days to close at the end of the month, and the reconciliation is a serious factor, the unified platform will be fixed in the shortest time.
When you export to Excel to do cash forecasting, and you are using NetSuite or Sage Intacct, you are paying to do things that you are not doing.
Should you find that your AR DSO is more than 45 days and your AP department does not understand the reasons that collections are being delayed, the problem is with visibility, not with collections.
When you are processing 200+ invoices/month on a BILL or independent AP solution, you are paying a point-solution price of a tenth of the value.

The Competitive Landscape: Why Point Solutions Fall Short

It makes sense to give a name to what is actually available in the market for mid-market finance teams, as the marketing may be even more effective than the actual product.

Float, Pulse, Dryrun are cash visibility tools; they indicate what is going on, but not AP or AR. They need to be maintained manually, operate on periodic syncs, and are unable to bridge the timing disparity between what you are owed and what you will receive. They are not platforms; they are dashboards.
BILL and Stampli are AP-first. They are proficient at invoice processing and invoice approval workflows, but not at seeing your AR. Therefore, they are unable to respond to the question, "Do we have enough coming in to safely pay what is going out this week?” It is that question that drives cash management decisions, and AP-only tools are structurally incapable of answering it.
Kyriba and HighRadius are enterprise treasury management systems (TMS) that are strong, full-featured, and priced and scoped for companies with revenue of $500M+, treasury teams, and implementation plans of 12–18 months. They are overbuilt and overpriced when they are mid-market teams of 3–8 financial personnel.

There is a gap between Centime and other mid-market platforms: Centime is the only one to have AP automation and AR automation, cash flow forecasting, and embedded banking within the same ERP-integrated platform. It is not a marketing statement but a particular product architecture difference, which directly applies to the visibility gaps mentioned above.

How Centime Solves the Unified Cash Management Problem

We can be more specific on what the platform is, since “unified” should have a meaning to it.

Accounts Payable: From Cost Center to Cash Lever

The AP automation of Centime manages the entire lifecycle of invoices, OCR capture using AI, PO matching, exception detection, deep approval processes, and payment processing. It is not any one of these features that matters, but rather that all this is run against a live AR data model.

‍

Approval workflow config for manufacturing/distribution teams:

Invoices below $2500: the auto-option is provided if the 3-way PO match is verified.
Invoices between $2,500 and $25,000: a PO match and a single approver are needed.
Invoices above $25,000: two-person approval, as well as the CFO controller's signatures.
Any invoice that does not have a corresponding PO: automatic hold and notification of the vendor through the Supplier Portal.
The early payment discount is due (2/10 net 30): submit to Controller with live AR collection forecast pre-approval.

Such a workflow, where the rules are involved, does away with manual exception handling, which consumes 20–30% of the time of AP staff per week.

Accounts Receivable: Collections That Know Your AP Position

The AR module of Centime is powered by an AI-based collections campaign, automated invoice deliveries, a customer payment portal, and dispute management, and can all be linked to the same cash model as your AP processes.

‍

The practical difference: when you have your AR team prioritizing the types of customers to escalate, they are making that decision with the visibility of your future AP obligations. Suppose you have a payroll of 150K that you run on Thursday, and you have three customers totalling 200K in receivables, 15 days past due. You have a collections team that is aware of that in the system, not because someone informs them, but because the system presents it.

‍

AI-driven AR automation cuts DSO by 15–25 days and boosts collection rates by 30%; however, only in association with the AP timing data. That is the dependency of integration that point solutions are not able to satisfy.

Cash Flow Forecasting: Real-Time, Not Rebuilt Weekly

The Centime prediction engine is based on real-time information on your AP requirements, AR payments, and bank accounts, with no spreadsheet updates, no manual rebuild, and no information lag. Scenario modeling enables you to perform what-if analysis, such as what if Customer X pays 10 days late? What if we accept the early-pay discount on these three vendors and do not do a what-if analysis (what if the customer makes the payment) afterwards?

‍

This sort of analysis is what only 17% of finance teams currently have. It's achievable in weeks, not years.

ERP-Native Integration: The Architecture That Matters

Centime ERP integrations are not API wrappers but platform-specific:

NetSuite: Built-in NetSuite SuiteApp. AP-AR cash reconciliation is not done in Excel, but it occurs in its natural state. Centime provides real-time responses to NetSuite, making your ERP the system of record.
Sage Intacct: ERP-based embedded. Individual balances are displayed in Sage Intacct; unified cash flow is displayed in Centime. The two complement each other, not replace each other.
QuickBooks (Desktop + Online): Generally speaking, QBO includes significant gaps, which QuickBooks is designed to address: no AI forecasts, no multi-function scenario modeling, and no single AP/AR picture. Centime fills all three.
Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central: Dynamics is the most native AI layer (Copilot + Azure AI), yet it requires the AP/AR operational execution layer of Centime to bridge the cross-functional visibility gap.

Each of the four ERP platforms released major updates within the last 12 months. None of them is intrinsically capable of resolving the cross-functional AP/AR visibility issue. Well, that is no criticism; it is a product scope reality.

‍

Embedded Banking: Closing the Final Loop

Centime has a banking relationship with you (FNBO, Member FDIC) such that your operating account, AP executing payment, and AR collections can coexist in the same platform. Cash sitting idle makes money (currently, the interest rate is 2.25% APY as of December 2025). Virtual card payments generate rebates on AP spending. Working capital credit facilities fill the timing gap without the need for another banking discussion.

‍

Such an arrangement isn't a nice-to-have. In the case of a 3-5 day payment time flexibility revenue distribution company with a $15M revenue, with embedded banking, the optimum gap between AP disbursement and AR collection will produce a cash savings of $50,000-$150,000 in annual cash.

Phased Implementation: A 4-Step Roadmap That Feels Achievable

The most significant factor behind the procrastination of the unification of the finance team on the AP/AR stack is the fear of implementation. Fair concern The migration of ERP and changes in the finance system can be painful. Centime has the following reality to deal with: implementation runs 7–21 days, not months.

Phase 1: Days 1–7: ERP Connection + Data Mapping
Integrate Centime with your ERP (NetSuite, Sage Intacct, QBO, or Dynamics 365 BC). Map your chart of accounts, vendor master, and customer master. Validate data sync. No disruption of workflow as yet; this is observational.
Phase 2: Days 7–14: AP Workflow Configuration
Set approval requirements, PO matching requirements, and payment run schedules. Move active suppliers to the Supplier Portal. Parallel first payment cycle with the process you already have running to check.
Phase 3: Days 14–21: AR Automation Activation
Establish collections campaigns, automate the delivery of invoices, and create a customer payment portal. Establish set escalation policies on aging buckets. Trigger AI collection processes.
Phase 4: Week 4 and Beyond: Cash Forecasting + Banking Integration
Enable the forecasting dashboard. Connect bank accounts. Begin scenario modeling. It is time to decommission your separate AP and AR tools when the team is comfortable.

At the end of the second month, you are expected to be at a one-screen cash position, have an automated PO identical to running touchless, and have AR collections that automatically grow according to the aging and urgency of AP.

Conclusion

This is what the majority of CFOs fail to model when deciding to postpone a tech stack consolidation: the cost of the status quo increases.

‍

Every month you run separate AP and AR tools, it's another month of:

You should not have manual reconciliation labor in your team.
You lost early payment discounts that you will never see again.
Mistake in cash forecast, which curbs your expansion planning.
Audit exposure from incomplete cross-system trails.
Frustration with tools that do not collaborate.

82% of CFOs say poor cash visibility limits growth planning. This is precisely the root cause in most mid-market companies where AP and AR are not connected and lack a single cash model beneath them.

‍

Are you prepared to examine the financial performance of your business? Book a demo with Centime or use the ROI Calculator to model your specific invoice volume, AR balances, and AP spend. Most teams find the payback period is under 6 months.

Sign up for our newsletter
to get finance insights and cash planning tips delivered straight to your inbox twice per week.

The Hidden Cost of Managing AP and AR in Separate Tools: A CFO's Guide to Unified Cash Management

You may also like

Solutions

Features

Pricing

Integrations

Resources

Software Solutions

Company

Industries

Compare

Guides