Close accounting automation · comparison
Numeric vs FeeGuard: automated recs vs absence-based leak detection
Reconciliation compares what you recorded against what settled. The Connect leak this page is about produces no record to compare — the reversal that should have happened simply did not, so nothing mismatches. Numeric is strong at the first job; here is an honest map of where the second one begins.
What Numeric does
a modern close-accounting platform pairing automated reconciliations with AI-assisted review and variance analysis. Source: https://www.numeric.io.
That is real capability in its lane — and the lanes below show precisely where it ends.
Everything said here about Numeric is summarised from its own public materials at the link above, never from private knowledge of how it works inside. Products change; if any line has gone out of date, tell us at feeguard@teamveristria.com and we will correct the page rather than argue about it.
Side by side: FeeGuard vs Numeric
Eight capabilities a Connect platform needs. No empty cells — every row states what each product actually does.
| Capability | FeeGuard | Numeric |
|---|---|---|
| Unreversed-transfer detection | Yes — computed on every `charge.refunded` event: proportional expectation, rounding tolerance, ratio clamping | No — recs pair existing rows; absences lack partners. |
| Application-fee leak detection | Yes — application fees tested against reversals via Net Platform Margin; zero- and three-decimal currencies handled | No — fee layer invisible. |
| Dispute-loss clawback support | Yes — recoverable figure computed on `dispute.closed` (transfer remainder, fee excluded); early warning on `created`; gated automation | No — approvals govern entries, not movements. |
| Cross-border FX monitoring | Yes — realised rates measured against same-day currency-pair baselines; directional loss flagging beyond 0.8% | No — fX variance noted, not attributed. |
| Runs on your live Stripe Connect account today | Yes — read-only restricted key, roughly ten minutes to first findings, revocable anytime | Depends on deployment |
| Performs recovery actions | One-click manual reversals (free tier); risk-gated automation with idempotency keys on Monitor Pro | Varies by product |
| Evidence & audit trail | Append-only trail on every action; finding-level evidence ids exportable as CSV | Varies by product |
| Pricing model | Detection and the 90-day lookback free · monitoring is a subscription from $49/mo · success fee only when eligible funds are recovered | See vendor site |
Where Numeric genuinely wins
- — Modern UX closing the gap with spreadsheet comfort.
- — AI-assisted proposals speeding reviewer throughput.
Why platforms choose FeeGuard over Numeric
- Absence, not mismatch. Reconciliation finds rows that disagree with each other; these detectors find the row that was never written.
- All four vectors, natively. Unreversed transfers, kept fees, uncovered dispute losses and FX drag are separate detectors with separate arithmetic, not one heuristic wearing four labels.
- Free before you pay anyone. Detection and the 90-day lookback cost nothing — measure your stranded dollars before committing to any vendor, including us.
- Ten-minute, read-only setup. One restricted key you create and revoke; no migration, no seller re-onboarding, no payment-path changes.
- Recovery is billed on results. The success fee applies only to dollars actually recovered and confirmed in Stripe — if nothing recovers, nothing bills.
- Evidence-grade trail. Append-only logs with finding-level arithmetic — ready for controllers, auditors and diligence teams.
Bottom line
Automated recs pair rows. Our detectors notice missing ones. Pair-matching cannot flag a row that was never written. If your problem lives in close accounting automation, Numeric deserves its reputation. If your problem is a platform balance lower than your ledger predicts — refunds succeeding while transfers never come home — that problem has exactly one purpose-built answer, and you are reading it. Run the free audit; the number settles the debate faster than any comparison page can.
Common questions
Could Numeric recs test reversals?
With custom matching logic maintained internally, partially — the maintenance burden is exactly what dedicated detection removes.
Is FeeGuard a better choice than Numeric?
For close accounting automation, Numeric is the specialist and we say so plainly. For detecting and recovering silent Stripe Connect losses — the four vectors above — FeeGuard is purpose-built and Numeric does not perform that function. Most platforms comparing the two are feeling the second problem.
Can we run Numeric and FeeGuard together?
Yes, commonly. They operate on different objects and different events; neither conflicts with the other’s workflow.
What does switching cost us?
Nothing upfront: read-only key, ten-minute setup, free detection. Recovery carries a success fee only on confirmed dollars — so trying FeeGuard risks no budget at all.