Consolidation.app

Consolidation.app is a web workspace for controlled group reporting across entities. Its guided workflow moves from collecting entity packages through account mapping, intercompany matching, explanations, proposed eliminations, and approvals. Packages can include a reporting period, currency, source ledger, owner, and validation status. Mappings relate local accounts and dimensions to the group chart, with ownership visible; receivables and payables are paired by entity, counterparty, currency, document, and period.

The workflow retains reviewer decisions and open limitations, and holds group output until accountable reviewers resolve exceptions and accept the reporting package. People remain responsible for confirming source completeness, resolving policy choices, evaluating explanations, and approving postings and close. The public preview is illustrative: it does not post entries, operate a live close, validate accounting conclusions, or produce financial statements. The site describes security measures including Secure HttpOnly session cookies and organization-scoped PostgreSQL Row Level Security, but says its security information is not a certification, penetration-test attestation, compliance guarantee, or customer-specific security review. Enterprise controls and production-data scope require a signed agreement. Pricing is on request.

Consolidation.app outlines a controlled group-reporting workflow that keeps human review and unresolved limitations visible. Its public preview is not a live accounting process, and enterprise terms require a signed agreement.

Consolidation.app may suit teams coordinating group reporting and review across multiple entities. Its preview is illustrative, so it does not serve as a live close or financial-statement production tool.

Consolidation.app is a web workspace for coordinating group reporting across entities. It suits finance teams that want a visible, reviewer-led path from source packages to an approved reporting package. Its clearest value is governance around decisions and exceptions, while the public preview is not a production close system.

Overview

The workflow moves from collecting entity packages through account and dimension mapping, intercompany matching, explanations, proposed eliminations, and recorded approvals. This sequence gives each stage an owner and keeps unresolved limitations in view instead of hiding them inside a final number.

Packages can include period, currency, source ledger, owner, and validation status. Those fields help a group controller see what has arrived, who is accountable, and whether a package is ready for review. Mappings connect local accounts and dimensions to the group chart with visible ownership, making a usually diffuse setup task easier to assign and revisit.

The maker presents the site as a public product and knowledge surface. The workflows and records are illustrative, not evidence of a live customer implementation or a professional accounting conclusion. That distinction matters when evaluating it for an operating close.

Key features

Intercompany matching and eliminations

Receivable and payable positions are paired by entity, counterparty, currency, document, and period. In practice, that gives reviewers several concrete dimensions for tracing a mismatch rather than treating intercompany variance as an unexplained total. The workflow can then explain differences and propose eliminations, but people remain responsible for policy choices and approval.

Human-controlled close

Reviewers are assigned responsibility for confirming source completeness, resolving policy questions, evaluating explanations, and approving postings and the close. Decisions and open limitations remain in the workflow, and group output is held until accountable reviewers resolve exceptions and accept the reporting package. This is a strong fit for organizations that need an explicit review trail; it will feel less compelling to teams seeking unattended automation.

Audit and security posture

An audit trail supports the record of reviewer decisions. The security architecture describes statically generated public surfaces, same-origin server functions for authentication, Secure HttpOnly session cookies, and PostgreSQL Row Level Security with membership checks for organization-scoped data. These are sensible design measures, but the security statement is not a certification, penetration-test attestation, compliance guarantee, or customer-specific review.

The public preview does not post entries, operate a live close, validate accounting conclusions, or produce financial statements. Those boundaries make it unsuitable as a standalone production accounting system based on the preview alone.

Pricing

Consolidation.app is paid, with pricing on request. There are no published seat counts, quotas, trial duration, renewal terms, or free-plan limits to use for a purchase comparison. Prospective customers should expect commercial scope and pricing to be established directly.

Enterprise controls, recovery objectives, incident terms, and the scope of production data require a signed agreement. Registration, address, governing-law, and contracting details also need confirmation in signed commercial documents before enterprise contracting. The contact process supports product, privacy, security, accessibility, and legal discussions through the relevant product-page request form.

Platforms

Consolidation.app is offered on the web. No native mobile or desktop platform is identified.

Who it's for

This is aimed at group controllers, consolidation teams, and finance organizations coordinating multiple entities, currencies, ledgers, and intercompany positions. It is particularly appropriate where approval ownership, exception handling, and an audit trail are central requirements. It is not the right choice for a buyer that needs the public product to execute postings, run a live close, validate accounting conclusions, or generate financial statements without a separately contracted production scope.

Pros and cons

Pros

• Structured workflow: collection, mapping, matching, explanations, eliminations, and approvals form a coherent review path.
• Useful review context: period, currency, source ledger, owner, and validation status make package responsibility visible.
• Explicit governance: exceptions remain open and output waits for accountable reviewer acceptance.
• Multi-currency and audit support: the workflow covers multi-currency consolidation, intercompany eliminations, and an audit trail.

Cons

• Preview-only execution: it does not post entries, run a live close, validate conclusions, or produce financial statements.
• Illustrative evidence: public workflows do not establish a live customer implementation or guaranteed outcome.
• Commercial uncertainty: pricing and enterprise operating terms are negotiated rather than published.
• Security claims have limits: the stated architecture is not a certification or customer-specific security assessment.

Alternatives

Choose OneStream instead when you need a paid platform spanning web, mobile, Windows, API, and self-hosted deployments; its platform pricing is discussed through a demo.

Konsolidat is the stronger option for a free, self-hosted route: its $$0 open-source plan has no per-user fees and includes listed ERP connectors, with community support.

Consider AARO CPM when a paid base package with immediate deployment or customization and a demo-led buying process fits better.

CCH Tagetik, Farseer, and IDL Konsis are paid alternatives with pricing handled by demo, quote, or request. Arvexi and Entrilia are paid web/API alternatives.

Verdict

Consolidation.app is best for finance teams that want a controlled, human-approved group-reporting process with visible ownership, intercompany review, eliminations, and an audit trail. Choose it for that governance model and engage the maker to define production scope and terms. Look elsewhere if you need a proven live close engine, posted entries, or generated financial statements before signing an enterprise agreement.