A finance system of record (general ledger, payables, receivables, revenue recognition, close management, cash, tax, fixed assets and reporting), marketed as an AI-native finance ERP in which reconciliation and validation run every day rather than at period end. It is aimed at finance teams in software and multi-entity services groups replacing a ledger surrounded by spreadsheets and point tools.
| Edition | Size fit, as we read it | What the vendor publishes |
|---|---|---|
| Launch | 20–200 employees | $299 a month billed annually ($3,588 a year). One entity, unlimited users, general ledger, AR, AP, bank reconciliation, ~70 reports, 500 AI documents a month.[2] |
| Growth | 50–1,000 employees | $749 a month billed annually ($8,988 a year). Three entities with consolidation, ASC 606, approval workflows, API, webhooks and SSO, 2,000 AI documents a month.[2] |
| Scale | 200–5,000 employees | $1,599 a month billed annually ($19,188 a year). Ten entities with intercompany and eliminations, ASC 842, fixed assets, inventory, MCP access, 10,000 AI documents a month.[2] |
| Enterprise | 500–5,000 employees | Quoted from $40K a year. Unlimited entities, SAML and custom RBAC, governance ledger exports, dedicated infrastructure, and the e-invoicing mandates (UAE Peppol, ZATCA, India IRP).[2] |
How deeply each module is covered, as recorded against the sources below. Core and moderate are native; partner means a certified add-on carries it; none is a recorded absence.
Industries the vendor names in its own positioning. Absence from this list is not a statement that the system is unsuitable, only that the vendor does not lead with it.
Consider Rivane when a software or multi-entity services group wants reconciliation and close running continuously inside the ledger rather than as a month-end project, and operations are handled in other systems.[1]
Consider it for a Gulf entity where the group can sit on the Enterprise plan, which is the only one listing the UAE and ZATCA mandates; below that tier the published plans do not include them.[2]
Systems with a comparable size fit and cost band, which is why they appear on the same shortlists. Each link opens a head-to-head built from both records. They are the pairings a buyer is likely to shortlist, not a limit on what can be compared: any two systems in the dataset can be laid side by side, including combinations we never pair.
One note per module the system offers: the recorded depth, what to ask in a demonstration, and which other tracked systems carry the module natively.
Every fact in this profile was taken from the pages below, on the date shown. Footnote markers on the page point here. The positioning statement is Stackmark’s own.