Executive Summary

This report examines six leading alternatives to Fieldguide.io—CaseWare, Wolters Kluwer CCH Engagement, AICPA DAS, Microsoft Excel, Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Engage, and AuditBoard—across North America and Asia. Each solution offers distinct strengths and weaknesses in areas such as cost, usability, and feature depth. For instance, CaseWare delivers a mid-tier balance of price and functionality for external audits, while AuditBoard caters to enterprise-level internal audits and SOX compliance. Excel remains a widely used low-cost option but introduces risk through manual processes and lacks built-in audit workflows. Ultimately, firms must align their choice with specific requirements, budget, and desired complexity, ensuring a smooth transition and long-term efficiency gains.

Quick Comparison

CaseWare

Overview and Key Features

CaseWare is a long-standing audit software suite widely used in North America and beyond. It offers CaseWare Working Papers (desktop) and a newer CaseWare Cloud platform for end-to-end audit engagement management. Key features include a digital workpaper binder with robust trial balance integration, automated financial statement reporting, and built-in audit programs and checklists. Users can import client data from accounting systems and link trial balance figures to supporting schedules, ensuring consistency – a favorite capability among practitioners. For example, one auditor noted “the feature I love most about CaseWare is its ability to store and manage work papers and annotate and link work papers to the trial balance” . CaseWare also provides audit templates (e.g. for IFRS/GAAP audits, review engagements) and supports collaboration (multiple staff can work on an engagement file, especially in the cloud version). These capabilities make CaseWare popular for financial statement audits, reviews, compilations, and other assurance engagements. Industries served are primarily accounting firms (from small practices up to large firms and government audit agencies). The platform’s comprehensive compliance features and audit trail functionality have made it a preferred choice for firms heavily focused on audit and assurance. 

In Asia, CaseWare has a presence through regional partners (e.g. CaseWare Asia, CaseWare Africa, etc.), and is used by firms in markets like Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Middle East. It supports multiple accounting standards, which helps adoption across regions. Overall, CaseWare’s strengths lie in its robust audit methodology support and workpaper automation, which can significantly reduce manual work compared to using spreadsheets.

User Reviews & Pain Points

While powerful, CaseWare is often criticized for its steep learning curve and clunky user interface. Users on G2 and Capterra note that the software “does not feel very intuitive” and can be “a little clunky” in operation . New users struggle to find features and get comfortable with the interface . This means firms must invest time in training staff on CaseWare’s menus and functions. Another common pain point is the template system: firms often must customize or update audit programs and financial statement templates each year. One user lamented the “lack of templates and the amount of work that goes into creating and updating them every year”. Without up-to-date templates, leveraging CaseWare’s automation fully can be challenging.

Performance issues are occasionally reported, especially with the older desktop version dealing with large files or network drives. Some reviews mention the software can feel slow or freeze during certain operations . However, others acknowledge that once learned, CaseWare greatly improves the ability to complete audit tasks that would be hard to manage otherwise.  In summary, pros include rich features and integration, but cons include an outdated UX, non-intuitive workflows, and the need for substantial training and setup. As one reviewer put it, “CaseWare does not feel very intuitive. It’s a little clunky… Great as a repository for documents, not great as audit software.” . These usability issues can impact team productivity and adoption if not addressed with proper onboarding.

User Insights

Discussions among professionals reinforce similar points. Auditors have described CaseWare as both a blessing and a curse. Some praise it as an industry standard – one user even called “CaseWare the GOAT (greatest of all time)” and said they’d use it independently if it weren’t so expensive. This highlights that, despite its flaws, the software’s core functionality is highly valued by experienced users. By contrast, others vent about frustrations: “Struggling with CaseWare” threads cite difficulties with the interface and bugs. For example, a CPA on r/Accounting mentioned that CaseWare’s interface wasn’t user-friendly and required significant training, echoing that new auditors often have to “figure it out” largely on their own.

In comparisons with competitors, CaseWare is often viewed more favorably than its closest rival (CCH Engagement) on usability and efficiency. In one discussion, a practitioner who had used both commented: “As someone who has used both CaseWare and [CCH] Engagement, you absolutely do not want to switch to Engagement. CaseWare is much better.” Reasons given include fewer syncing headaches and a more efficient workflow. However, users also joke that many firms never fully utilize CaseWare’s advanced features, essentially using it as a glorified file repository with Excel embedded – a scenario due to lack of training or resistance to change. The consensus is that CaseWare delivers strong audit capabilities, but firms must overcome its initial complexity. When implemented well, it’s considered a backbone of efficient audits; when implemented poorly, staff may revert to Excel out of frustration.

Pricing

CaseWare does not publicly list pricing, as it typically sells licenses through vendors or direct sales based on firm size. Pricing is usually per-user (annual subscription). Anecdotally, CaseWare is seen as more affordable than other full-fledged audit software. A social media thread discussing alternatives revealed a quote: a mid-sized firm got a CCH Axcess Engagement quote of “a little over $2k per user” and noted that was about double what they were paying (or hoping to pay) for CaseWare. This implies CaseWare’s cost was roughly ~$1,000 per user per year for that firm’s scenario. Another G2 reviewer simply noted “the software is also fairly inexpensive compared to other applications, which is why our company switched”.

That said, actual costs vary. For small firms, CaseWare (desktop) could be a few thousand dollars for a handful of users, whereas enterprise cloud deployments for large firms run higher. There may be additional fees for specific modules or template content. For instance, CaseWare’s collaboration with the AICPA on OnPoint PCR (a CaseWare-based product for preparations/compilations) was advertised at $499 per user/year for up to 5 users , which gives a ballpark for a limited-scope license. Full audit suites would cost more. Overall, CaseWare is generally considered reasonably priced for the value – often cheaper than Wolters Kluwer or Thomson Reuters packages – making it attractive for mid-sized CPA firms. Firms should budget for training and support as part of the cost, however, given the learning curve.

Wolters Kluwer (CCH Engagement)

Overview and Use Cases

Wolters Kluwer (WK) offers the CCH ProSystem fx Engagement software and its cloud successor CCH Axcess Engagement, which are among the primary competitors to Fieldguide and CaseWare in North America. These tools provide a digital workpaper binder, trial balance, and financial statement reporting system tightly integrated with other CCH accounting products. CCH Engagement (on-premise) has been a staple in many U.S. CPA firms for managing audit workpapers and tax trial balances. It allows teams to import client financial data, propose adjusting journal entries, and link workpapers to the trial balance similar to CaseWare. CCH’s solutions are especially popular with firms that also use CCH tax preparation software or the PPC audit programs, since integration between tax and audit modules is a selling point.

The newer CCH Axcess Engagement (cloud) aims to modernize this platform by offering web-based access, eliminating the need for local servers. In terms of industries, CCH’s audit tools target public accounting firms (external audit, reviews, etc.), and they’ve also been used by some internal audit departments or government auditors. They support multi-location collaboration (via a check-in/check-out mechanism for on-prem, and real-time cloud sync for Axcess). Notably, Wolters Kluwer’s audit products often come with PPC’s audit methodology content (Practice Aids) which many U.S. firms trust for compliance. This makes CCH a comprehensive solution when paired with those checklists and programs.

User Reviews & Common Feedback

User feedback on CCH Engagement is mixed, skewing negative when it comes to usability. A frequent complaint is that it’s not very user-friendly, with an dated interface that “has not really changed that much over the past decade”. Users mention that first-time onboarding is tough: one reviewer said the software “is not an intuitive software and takes time to learn,” though admitting this is fairly standard for the industry. Another pain point is the classic “check-out/check-in” workflow in the desktop version: when one person has a binder file checked out, others are locked out from editing. This can frustrate teams, especially if someone forgets to sync their changes back promptly. By comparison, cloud-based Fieldguide or AuditBoard allow multi-user real-time collaboration, so this older architecture feels cumbersome.

Stability and performance are other issues. Users have reported that CCH Engagement can be “clunky, buggy, not intuitive… inconsistent performance”, with complaints of frequent software crashes or Excel link failures. In fact, the integration of CCH Engagement with Excel and Word – while a key feature – tends to break at times. A reviewer noted that the Excel add-in tools “tend to ‘break’” requiring reinstalls or support fixes. Additionally, running on a SQL database backend means some firms experience slowness as the data grows.

On the positive side, some loyal users appreciate CCH Engagement’s depth. It has strong automation for roll-forward of prior year files and ties in with CCH’s tax software nicely. One Capterra review from an experienced user stated they would “choose CCH over its competitors, such as CaseWare,” citing timely updates and reliable features. However, these voices are overshadowed by many who find the software dated and cumbersome. Critically, small practitioners find the cost-to-benefit ratio hard to justify given these usability drawbacks.

User Insights

On forums, discussions about Wolters Kluwer’s Engagement often revolve around frustration with its modern incarnation, Axcess Engagement. Users who beta-tested or migrated to the cloud version reported that it “is not refined, clunky, and horribly unintuitive. It’s just not worth the high price.” Another professional bluntly wrote, “We chose CCH but later switched to CaseWare. ... CCH appears to be pretty proud of Axcess Engagement price,” indicating their firm couldn’t justify sticking with CCH given efficiency concerns. In one detailed thread, multiple accountants agreed Axcess Engagement was a step backward: “I loved CCH ProSystem fx Engagement, but they ruined Axcess Engagement,” said a user, noting the new cloud version added extra steps for the same tasks. They also mentioned that the UI felt like something from 1990 in terms of design and responsiveness. Such comments highlight that WK’s attempt to modernize has, at least initially, been rough – a contrast to Fieldguide’s modern UI approach.

Another major theme is pricing (next section), which heavily factors into user opinions. Many consider CCH’s solution overpriced; as one commenter put it, “the price difference from CaseWare is significant,” and upon seeing a demo, it was “clearly an inferior product ... at twice the price”. The check-in/check-out annoyance also comes up frequently – internal audit folks compared this to tools like AuditBoard and found CCH’s method far less efficient.

Interestingly, a few users who primarily do tax work liked Engagement for trial balance purposes but not for full audits, indicating it may be more popular among tax accountants for workpaper management than auditors seeking a streamlined risk-based audit tool. Overall, community sentiment signals that unless a firm is deeply tied into the CCH ecosystem, they often favor alternatives due to CCH Engagement’s usability issues and cost. Firms in Asia appear less likely to use CCH audit software (CaseWare or even Excel is more common there), likely because local support and cost make it less attractive in that region.

Pricing

Wolters Kluwer’s audit software is one of the more expensive options. Precise pricing requires contacting WK’s sales, and as one user noted, “it’s hard to obtain software information and pricing from CCH” without speaking to a rep. Historically, ProSystem fx Engagement was sold per-user or per-firm license (often with a base fee plus added user fees). The new Axcess Engagement is subscription-based, and multiple firms have reported steep quotes. In an online forum, a practitioner received a quote of “a little over $2k per user” for CCH Axcess Engagement, and others confirmed that moving from the older desktop version to Axcess roughly doubled their costs. For context, that firm had over 400 audits; even with volume, the price was double what they paid on-prem, prompting them not to migrate.

Smaller firms also find it *“extremely expensive for a small business” . Some reviews call CCH Engagement “the most expensive” option in the market. A 2014 comparison put ProSystem fx Engagement starting around $1,275 per license (before discounts)  – prices have likely increased with inflation and the new cloud features. Moreover, firms often bundle PPC content (audit programs) for additional cost, and support contracts may add further expense.

In summary, potential buyers should expect a premium price tag for CCH’s audit solutions. Mid-sized and larger firms with robust budgets might afford it, especially if they leverage the integration with CCH tax software. But for many small and even mid-tier firms, the cost has been a deal-breaker when compared to alternatives. The high cost, combined with the user experience issues, means the value proposition must be weighed carefully. If a firm is considering CCH purely because they use other Wolters Kluwer products, it’s worth negotiating the price and ensuring the team is prepared for the training investment – otherwise, as community feedback suggests, the ROI may not materialize.

AICPA Dynamic Audit Solution (DAS / OnPoint)

Overview

The Dynamic Audit Solution (DAS) – also branded as OnPoint DAS – is a relatively new cloud audit platform developed as a joint effort by the AICPA, CPA.com, and CaseWare. It is positioned as a next-generation solution that embeds the AICPA’s risk-based audit methodology into an end-to-end software application. Built on CaseWare’s cloud technology, DAS aims to transform how audits are performed by guiding practitioners through a data-driven, risk-focused workflow. Key features advertised include:

• Advanced risk assessment tools (to identify and respond to risks of material misstatement more dynamically),
• Integration with data analytics and AI (leveraging CaseWare’s analytics capabilities and possibly tools like MindBridge in the future,
• Embedded guidance and templates authored by the AICPA’s audit experts,
• Cloud-based collaboration and document management similar to CaseWare Cloud, and
• A streamlined approach intended to reduce redundant paperwork and automate parts of the audit.

DAS is primarily designed for external financial statement audits of private entities, which is the core focus of most CPA firms’ audit practices. By incorporating AICPA’s own audit guides and literature, the software is meant to help firms (especially small and mid-sized firms) perform high-quality audits in compliance with standards. In North America, interest in DAS has been growing since its pilot launch around 2021-2022; AICPA has marketed it as “built by auditors, for auditors” with the promise of “audit of the future” methodologies. Some early adopters are mid-sized CPA firms looking to gain efficiency and stay current with technology. In Asia, DAS is not yet widely adopted, but could gain traction through international member firms of networks if the methodology aligns with international standards (ISA).

Early User Feedback and Pain Points

Since DAS/OnPoint is new, there aren’t as many public reviews yet, but early feedback from pilot users and discussions in accounting communities indicate significant growing pains. One user who tested DAS during busy season shared a candid take: “They keep touting it as the ‘audit of the future,’ but I keep asking myself, what is this doing differently than CaseWare and [Thomson Reuters] PPC? If anything, the bloated risk assessment and unintuitive interface just makes things inefficient.” This comment suggests that, in practice, DAS was generating a lot of additional documentation (risk forms, checklists) without clear efficiency gains – possibly overwhelming users with its methodology-heavy approach.

Another practitioner in the same discussion replied that DAS felt like it was still in alpha (early development), describing the interface as “very clunky.” They often found themselves thinking “I can do this already in CaseWare and PPC” with no added benefit. These are strong signals that, at least initially, the software had usability issues and did not yet deliver the revolutionary improvements promised. Common themes from such feedback include:

• Interface and UX issues: Despite being cloud-based, the UI may not be as polished, making navigation and finding information difficult.
• Learning curve: Even auditors already familiar with CaseWare had to adjust to how DAS implements the audit flow. The heavy emphasis on documentation of risk could slow down experienced users who felt it was overkill.
• Incomplete features: Being new, certain refinements (like bulk actions, customization options, etc.) might be lacking, giving an “unfinished” feel.

On the other hand, supporters of DAS (often from AICPA/CaseWare communications) highlight that it enforces a more consistent risk-based approach and could yield quality improvements and efficiencies once firms adapt. DAS embeds what the AICPA considers best practices – so in theory, it can prevent omissions and guide less experienced staff through the right steps. But the reality reported by first-wave users indicates that DAS in 2024/25 is still maturing, and firms might encounter workflow hiccups. Accounting Today recognized DAS as an innovative development in audit tech , yet widespread positive user stories have been sparse so far.

It’s worth noting that because DAS is essentially CaseWare Cloud under the hood, some of the familiar CaseWare quirks (good and bad) carry over. For example, the inability to fully customize certain workpaper formats was mentioned in CaseWare Cloud reviews – such limitations likely exist in DAS too, since it uses a predefined methodology.

Pricing

OnPoint DAS pricing is handled through CPA.com and CaseWare. The AICPA has not published fixed prices, instead inviting firms to inquire for quotes. However, some clues can be gleaned from related products. As mentioned, OnPoint PCR (a simpler CaseWare-based product for preparation and compilation engagements) started at $499 per user/year (for up to 5 users). It required a CaseWare Cloud license for each user as well. We can reasonably expect DAS to be priced higher than PCR due to its greater complexity and audit functionality.

For a small firm, pricing could be in the low thousands per year. For instance, if CaseWare standalone is around $1,000/user/year and AICPA adds its content value, DAS might be in that ballpark or slightly above. It is likely a subscription model per user or per seat, possibly with volume discounts for larger firms. Firms that already license CaseWare Cloud might get DAS as an add-on module.

Because DAS is positioned to compete with other audit software, AICPA is presumably sensitive to keeping it affordable for medium-sized firms. So while exact figures aren’t public, one can imagine something like $1,000–$1,500 per user annually for full DAS access (this is speculative). The key point is that it’s subscription-based and scalable. Firms considering DAS should contact CPA.com for a tailored quote. In any case, the cost needs to be weighed against efficiency gains – early users did not report massive time savings yet, so the ROI might take time. As the product matures and if it indeed allows faster, higher-quality audits, the pricing could be justified by reduced hours on engagements. Until then, potential adopters might want to pilot DAS on a few engagements (if a trial or limited license is available) to evaluate whether it’s worth the investment at this stage.

Microsoft Excel (Audits Done Manually)

Overview – Excel as an Audit Tool

Surprisingly, the most common “alternative” to any specialized audit software – especially in smaller firms – is still Microsoft Excel (alongside Word and PDF). Excel serves as a flexible, if manual, platform for audit workpapers. Audit teams use Excel for everything from trial balance schedules, lead sheets, and analytical reviews, to sampling calculations and financial statement drafting (often exporting numbers from Excel into Word). The reason Excel remains pervasive is twofold: familiarity and flexibility. Every accountant knows how to use Excel to some degree, and it allows virtually unlimited customization. One accountant quipped that “Excel dominates accounting work papers. It’s useful because you can mold it however you want, which you can’t do (not really at least) with software.”

In North America, many smaller CPA firms (and even some larger ones for certain tasks) stick with Excel-based workpapers, often following programs like those in PPC guides or other checklists on paper/PDF. In Asia, where the audit software market penetration is lower or where cost is a bigger concern, Excel is extremely common for engagements. Auditors might maintain a folder structure on a shared drive: Excel files for trial balance and schedules, Word documents for narratives, and PDFs of client evidence – essentially creating an “audit file” manually. This approach has the benefit of low cost and simplicity (no new software to buy or learn) but comes with significant drawbacks (discussed below).

Excel’s strength in audit engagements is that it imposes no specific methodology – auditors can improvise and adapt. For example, if an unusual financial reporting issue arises, they can just add a new worksheet or formula to address it, whereas rigid audit software might not accommodate easily. Excel is also universally compatible (clients provide data in Excel, auditors work in Excel, final numbers can be moved to reporting software or Word). For many practitioners, especially veteran auditors, Excel is a comfort zone.

Community Insights: Why Firms Still Rely on Excel

On discussion forums, accountants often acknowledge that inertia and cost drive Excel’s continued use. “People don’t want to spend money on the software. People are too used to Excel,” as one user summarized. This captures the reality that investing in an audit-specific platform can be expensive and disruptive, so firms stick to what they know. Another commenter observed that even companies that invest in fancy software often revert to Excel for reporting because those tools lack flexibility for last-minute management requests. In the context of audits, a similar mindset prevails: Excel can act as the safety net for anything a dedicated tool can’t handle.

That said, there is also recognition that Excel is far from ideal. In the r/Accounting community, it’s often noted that using Excel/Word for an audit is time-consuming and risks inconsistencies. Manual processes like updating multiple spreadsheets for one change, keeping track of review notes via email or comments, and ensuring completeness of workpapers are all challenging. One CPA Practice Advisor article bluntly stated that almost any modern audit tool is an improvement over using Word/Excel for engagements. In fact, the article advises that once a firm has more than ~15 audits per year, it “needs a tool for your working papers” and that while no tool is a silver bullet, they’re better than a pure Excel approach.

Users also discuss the Excel skills needed in auditing – reinforcing that a lot of audit work gets done in spreadsheets. Typical skills include creating pivot tables for data analysis, using lookup functions to tie numbers, and mastering basic formulas for workpaper calculations. Excel-based auditors often develop their own standardized templates (for lead schedules, ratio analysis, etc.) to bring some consistency to the process. In Asia, some firms have even built in-house Excel macro tools to simulate audit software features (like trial balance importing or automated lead sheet generation).

Limitations and Risks of Excel Engagements

While Excel offers flexibility, the downsides are significant. The foremost concern is risk of errors. Numerous studies have found that the majority of complex spreadsheets contain errors. A recent study showed “90% of spreadsheets containing more than 150 rows have at least one significant error”. Audits often deal with large spreadsheets (e.g. consolidating trial balances, extensive calculations), so the risk of a formula mistake or copy-paste error is high. Unlike dedicated audit software, Excel has no built-in safeguards or audit trail – numbers can be changed and it may be hard to trace who changed what or whether all changes are approved. This lack of an audit trail and version control can be a nightmare for review: reviewers must manually cross-check every figure and ensure nothing is omitted.

Another issue is efficiency and consistency. Audit software typically provides standardized workflows: e.g., automatically roll forward prior year workpapers to a new file, flagging which items need updating. In Excel, everything must be done manually at year-end – copying last year’s files, updating dates, clearing values, etc., which is error-prone. Collaboration is also clunky: multiple staff cannot easily work in the same Excel file simultaneously (unless using online Excel with careful coordination), so often audit team members pass files back and forth. There’s no central dashboard to track completion of work programs – it might be managed in a separate Excel or checklist, adding to administrative overhead.

Users also face the limitation that Excel itself is not a database; linking dozens of spreadsheets together can lead to broken links or huge files. And storing client documents often requires separate PDF files and a lot of manual organization. In short, an Excel-based audit is labor-intensive and highly reliant on the diligence of the audit team to maintain quality.

Cost Consideration

One reason Excel persists is cost. Microsoft Excel comes as part of the Microsoft Office (Microsoft 365) suite that firms typically already license for email and documentation, so there’s essentially no incremental cost to use Excel for audit engagements. A typical Microsoft 365 Business subscription might run around $150 per user per year (which includes Excel, Word, SharePoint, etc.), a tiny fraction of what specialized audit software costs. Thus, from a pure budget standpoint, using Excel is “free” for the firm.

However, there is an important distinction between monetary cost and effort cost. While Excel has negligible software cost, it can require many more staff hours to complete an audit using manual processes. Firms may not always quantify that internal cost. If audit software could save even 5-10% of hours on an engagement, it would likely pay for itself. The challenge is that those savings aren’t always immediately transparent, whereas a software invoice is. Hence, many especially smaller firms stick to Excel until the pain of inefficiency or a growth in audit volume forces them to seek a better way.

In summary, Excel is the baseline alternative – highly flexible and universally available, but carrying substantial risks and downsides. Potential users considering leaving Fieldguide (or foregoing a dedicated tool) for Excel should be mindful that they are trading short-term convenience or savings for long-term efficiency and quality challenges. Excel might suffice for very small audits or agreed-upon procedures, but as complexity grows, the lack of purpose-built features becomes a significant hindrance.

Thomson Reuters (AdvanceFlow & Checkpoint Engage)

Overview

Thomson Reuters offers another competing suite for audit engagements, centered on its Checkpoint Engage and AdvanceFlow products. These tools evolved from Thomson’s heritage in providing tax and accounting information (Checkpoint) and the PPC audit programs. Checkpoint Engage is a cloud-based audit program and checklist system that leverages the popular PPC audit methodologies (acquired by Thomson). AdvanceFlow is a cloud workpaper management system (integrated with Thomson’s GoFileRoom document management) that handles trial balances, journal entries, and workpaper storage. Together, these allow firms to conduct audits with a combination of Thomson’s content and cloud technology, somewhat analogous to CaseWare or CCH’s offerings.

The Thomson Reuters solutions are mainly used by CPA firms in North America. Many who choose Thomson do so because of the PPC Guides – these are well-respected step-by-step audit programs and checklists. Checkpoint Engage digitizes those checklists, so auditors can systematically document their risk assessment, procedures, and conclusions in the PPC format (which aligns with auditing standards). Industries and use cases are similar to others: financial statement audits, reviews, and compilations for private companies. Some firms also use Thomson’s tools for employee benefit plan audits or other specialty engagements, given PPC has content for those as well.

Thomson’s audit tools integrate with its CS Professional Suite and GoSystem Tax products. For example, trial balances can be imported from Accounting CS, and final adjustments can export to UltraTax CS or GoSystem Tax for tax return prep. This integration appeals to firms already invested in Thomson’s ecosystem. In Asia, Thomson’s audit software has a smaller footprint; it’s mostly a North American player.

User Experience and Feedback

User feedback on Thomson Reuters’ audit software is less publicly abundant than for CaseWare or CCH, but we can glean some insights. Ease of use is a known issue: much like its competitors, Thomson’s audit tools have a learning curve. For instance, some practitioners mention that Thomson’s interface isn’t very modern and that navigation through PPC checklists on screen can be cumbersome compared to paper. However, those deeply familiar with PPC find comfort in the content being the same, just online.

One advantage noted by users is that Thomson’s AdvanceFlow is truly cloud-based, which meant no more check-out/check-in like CCH’s older system. This aligns with the broader move to cloud across the industry. An article on CPA Practice Advisor listed AdvanceFlow among the few web-based audit tools available (along with CCH Axcess and Inflo), highlighting it as an option for those seeking cloud deployment.

Common pain points include occasional integration glitches (for example, linking AdvanceFlow trial balance data to the Checkpoint Engage checklist might require careful setup). Also, similar to others, customization is limited – firms largely follow the PPC formats. If an audit situation doesn’t fit the standard template, workarounds might be needed.

Another consideration is that Thomson’s audit software isn’t as widely adopted, so peer support and community knowledge is sparser. Some users in accounting threads don’t even mention Thomson’s tools, focusing more on CaseWare vs. CCH, which suggests Thomson might have a smaller market share. Those who have used both often compare them indirectly via the content: e.g., “we already use PPC, so Checkpoint was a logical choice.” On the flip side, earlier-cited comments (in the AICPA DAS discussion) lumped “CaseWare and PPC” together as the existing tools DAS would need to beat. This implies many firms were effectively combining CaseWare’s software with PPC’s audit programs (perhaps printing them out or using PDF forms). For such firms, Thomson’s integrated solution could be attractive to unify those. Yet if those same firms found CaseWare’s software acceptable, switching to Thomson’s might not feel very different functionally – it could come down to cost or content preferences.

Pricing

Thomson Reuters follows the enterprise software model of contact-for-quote. They typically charge annual subscription fees for Checkpoint Engage (often tied to how many concurrent engagements or users, and which PPC content modules are included) and for AdvanceFlow (per user). Pricing information is not readily published. One reviewer on Capterra noted that with Thomson (like CCH), “there are so many options available and specifics are only available from talking with an account rep.” This lack of transparency means firms often negotiate custom bundles (e.g., a firm might license PPC engagement programs for audits, reviews, compilations, and also get a certain number of AdvanceFlow users in the deal).

Ballpark figures: A small firm might pay a few thousand dollars per year for a bundle that includes a couple of user licenses and PPC audit content. Larger firms could see tens of thousands in annual fees if they license multiple modules (for example, PPC guides for construction industry audits, nonprofit audits, etc., each might be separate). Since PPC content is updated annually for new standards, renewing subscriptions is important and part of the cost.

In comparison to CaseWare or CCH, Thomson’s pricing is likely competitive on the content side (since PPC replaces something a firm might otherwise buy as paper or PDF). Where costs can add up is if a firm also needs Thomson’s document management (GoFileRoom) or other pieces to get full functionality – those would be extra.

Overall, a firm considering Thomson’s Fieldguide alternative should anticipate a moderate to high investment, similar to other top-tier vendors. The decision often comes down to how much value the firm places on PPC’s methodology. If PPC audit programs are the gold standard for your engagements, paying for Checkpoint Engage ensures those are integrated and kept current. If not, you might lean to other software and perhaps use generic audit programs or create your own. As always, negotiating a pilot or a discount for multi-year commitment can help manage the cost.

AuditBoard

Overview and Use Cases

AuditBoard is a leading cloud-based audit and risk management platform that primarily serves internal audit departments and compliance teams, but it’s worth including as an alternative point of reference. While AuditBoard is not designed specifically for external financial audits, it overlaps with Fieldguide in areas like SOX compliance, internal controls testing, and workflow management. In North America, many large companies and some mid-size ones have adopted AuditBoard for managing their Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 404 programs, internal audit projects, and enterprise risk assessments. It offers modules such as SOXHUB (for control testing), AuditBoard (for internal audit project management), and modules for risk management, compliance (e.g. ISO, PCI), and even ESG tracking.

For an audit/advisory firm considering alternatives, AuditBoard could be relevant if the firm’s work involves internal audit outsourcing, SOX compliance consulting, or IT audits for clients. In such cases, the firm might use AuditBoard as a platform to service those engagements (essentially treating each client as a separate “entity” within AuditBoard). AuditBoard’s key features include real-time collaboration on workpapers, issue tracking and remediation workflows, and integration with common tools like Excel and PowerBI. Many users praise its modern web interface and the ability to have multiple users work concurrently without the old check-in/check-out hassle.

In Asia, AuditBoard has been expanding (they have an APAC presence targeting multinationals and firms in the region). Its use in public practice in Asia is limited, but some larger firms or affiliates might use it for advisory services.

User Feedback & Notable Issues

AuditBoard enjoys generally positive reviews for its user-friendly interface. For example, a comparison with older tools like TeamMate noted that “AuditBoard is very user interface friendly… Compared to TeamMate+ where you have to always check out and check in [documents] was so tedious, AuditBoard [syncs] changes whether working in the tool or in the linked file”. This highlights how AuditBoard solved a pain point that plagues CCH Engagement and older systems. Users also like the real-time dashboards and the fact that AuditBoard is accessible anywhere, no VPN or local server needed.

However, AuditBoard is not without criticisms. As a full-featured GRC (governance, risk, compliance) platform, some find certain parts overly complex or not flexible enough. Common negative feedback includes:

• Customization limitations: Some reviews note that it’s not easy to tailor certain fields or workflows. For instance, one user wished for richer text editing (no bold/italic in notes), and others say the policy or workpaper modules have fixed workflows that can’t be tweaked .
• Workstream module issues: AuditBoard’s WorkStream (for managing requests, similar to PBC lists) has been called “not user friendly and complicated” by a customer. This module might be analogous to Fieldguide’s client request tracking, and apparently AuditBoard had room to improve it.
• Bugs and updates: A few users have experienced bugs after software updates. For example, “some functionality has broken as a result of updates” causing minor pains. Generally, AuditBoard is seen as stable, but as with any evolving SaaS, occasional glitches occur.
• Pricing and support model: Notably, one reviewer commented “The price has come up substantially, and lately more and more self-service is being pushed over former white-glove help.” This indicates AuditBoard’s cost has increased and that their customer support may be shifting some burden to user communities or knowledge bases (which some customers don’t appreciate given the premium price).

It’s important to stress that AuditBoard is designed for internal audit. Therefore, firms using it for external engagements might find gaps – e.g., it doesn’t have a built-in trial balance module for financial audits. An audit firm might still have to use Excel for trial balance and then upload to AuditBoard for documentation and review workflow. In contrast, Fieldguide or CaseWare provide dedicated trial balance/lead sheet features.

Overall, user sentiment is that AuditBoard is a powerful, modern platform that greatly improves audit project management and collaboration, especially compared to legacy systems. The notable issues revolve around specific feature quirks and the cost. For an organization with the budget, AuditBoard delivers a polished experience, but for a small firm the investment may be overkill if they only need to manage a handful of engagements.

Pricing

AuditBoard’s pricing is not publicly disclosed in detail, as it’s typically customized to the client’s size (number of users and entities) and modules purchased. It is known to be on the high end of the spectrum. Many AuditBoard customers are Fortune 1000 companies, and pricing in five or six figures annually would not be unusual for enterprise licenses. For a smaller team or a consulting firm with, say, 10 users, the cost could be more moderate, but still likely tens of thousands of dollars per year. One reviewer implied disappointment that “the price has come up substantially” recently, suggesting that as AuditBoard has grown in popularity, it hasn’t become cheaper.

If a CPA firm is considering AuditBoard as an alternative to Fieldguide, they should engage AuditBoard’s sales team for a tailored quote. Expect a per-user per-year fee or a tier based on functionality. AuditBoard often emphasizes the value and efficiency gains (for internal audit, ROI might be seen in headcount avoidance or time saved). For an external audit firm, one would have to evaluate if those efficiencies translate to more engagements or better client service to justify the cost.

In summary, AuditBoard is a top-tier solution with a price to match. Its strength in internal audit management is undeniable, but a firm should be clear on its use case – if your primary need is managing multiple client audits (and not internal audits of one company), some of its features might be less applicable while some needed features (like financial statement report generation) are missing. Thus, from a pricing-value perspective, AuditBoard is best suited if a firm does extensive SOX or internal control consulting where the platform can be fully utilized.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Choosing an alternative to Fieldguide.io requires balancing functionality, user experience, and cost. Here are some actionable insights for firms evaluating these options:

• Consider the Learning Curve: A consistent theme is that audit software can be difficult to learn. CaseWare, CCH, and Thomson Reuters all have steeper learning curves and require training investment. If your staff is smaller or less tech-savvy, a slightly more intuitive platform (or even sticking with Excel a bit longer with improved processes) might save short-term pain. However, Excel’s ease comes with high long-term risk and inefficiency, so plan to transition to a dedicated tool as your practice grows. Whichever software you choose, allocate time for proper onboarding – perhaps start with a pilot on one engagement, involve your “power users” to champion the tool, and utilize vendor training resources to build internal expertise.
  
  
• Weigh Cost vs. Benefit Realistically: Excel may be “free,” but the hidden cost is hours lost to manual work and potential errors. On the other hand, premium solutions like CCH Engagement or AuditBoard charge a lot – sometimes ~$2k per user or more – and you should ensure you’ll utilize their full capabilities to get ROI. Don’t be afraid to negotiate with vendors; for example, if you’re considering Axcess Engagement but find it too pricey, mention competitive offers – vendors may adjust pricing or suggest scaled-back packages (e.g., CCH “Essentials” versions).
  
  
• Trial if Possible: Wherever feasible, do a trial or demo with your own data. Especially for something as critical as audit workflows, a hands-on trial can reveal if a product truly fits your team. For instance, have your staff perform a small audit in the trial version of the software and gather feedback. This can surface unexpected deal-breakers (perhaps “product X doesn’t allow two people in the file at once” or “product Y’s report format is not acceptable to our clients”). Many providers will offer a guided demo or even a limited-time sandbox environment.
  
  

In conclusion, no single alternative is yet in the Goldilocks zone.. That’s why we’re building AuditCue - because auditors deserve better.