Meridian Ledger Meridian Ledger

8 Marina View, #28-01 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

Monday–Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM

Editorial method

How we decide what to recommend

Readers are entitled to know how a site picks the platforms it writes about, and what might bias it. This page states our method plainly, including its limits.

What we assess

Against a defined group shape

Entity ledgers Statutory-ready per entity Intercompany postings Automated two-sided Consolidation mechanics Re-runnable eliminations Multi-currency Translated at rate GST per registration Per filing not per group

A method stated plainly, limits included

This site exists to help finance teams inside Singapore groups compare cloud bookkeeping platforms on the things that actually matter once you run several legal entities. That job only works if you can see how the recommendations are formed. So this page sets out the axes we assess, the group shape we test against, where the material comes from, what we refuse to do, and how we treat the words vendors publish about their own products.

It is a short read on purpose. If something here is unclear, or if a page of ours has aged badly, the editorial desk is one link away.

Two chapters, one method

What we assess, and where the material comes from

Jun 2026

Against Singapore multi-entity needs

We assess platforms against Singapore multi-entity needs: entity-level ledgers, intercompany handling, consolidation mechanics, multi-currency translation, GST reporting per registration, and close sequencing support. A platform's single-entity bookkeeping quality matters, but it isn't the deciding factor, because readers here already have an accountant and a ledger.

We test against a defined group shape: three to eight legal entities, at least one foreign subsidiary, at least two GST registrations, and intercompany activity in most months. That's a common Singapore structure. Platforms that serve it are in scope; platforms that don't are described as what they are.

Jun 2026

Why single-entity scores are not enough

A product can look excellent at keeping one set of books and still fail the moment you need a group figure. The moment that matters is a two-sided posting, an elimination that has to be reversed and re-run, or a GST return that belongs to one registration and not the group. We read the axes in that order because the close runs in that order.

This is also why a platform can be described fairly as "not in scope here" without being called bad. Many genuinely capable single-entity products simply do not speak to a multi-entity structure, and saying so is more useful than stretching a comparison it cannot support.

Jun 2026

Vendor documentation, read directly

We read vendor documentation and public product material directly, including how Sage Intacct, NetSuite OneWorld, AccountsIQ and Oracle Fusion Cloud ERP describe their multi-entity capability. We compare those descriptions with what the products document about eliminations and intercompany automation, and we flag where a claim is stated without an explanation of the mechanism.

Jun 2026

Practitioner writing, counted as writing

We also follow Singapore advisory material. RSM Stone Forest's published guidance on cloud accounting and multi-entity workflows, including its writing on intercompany transaction capability and on Sage Intacct selection, is a useful practitioner counterweight to vendor positioning. We don't treat advisory content as neutral either, and we say when a firm has an implementation interest in a platform it discusses.

An evaluation bench at chest height: a clipboard with an open ruled worksheet, a steel ruler across it, four tick columns in the margin, and a lever-arch file standing at the right edge of the desk.
Bench work The axes we assess are the ones we would apply on our own clipboard: a rated worksheet, a straight edge, and four ticks ruled down the margin.

Editorial boundaries

What we do / what we do not do

What we do, and what we refuse to do

Two lanes, one column of criteria on the right. Read across a row to see where a practice sits.

Practice

Practice Placement, ranking or review fees

In place

Refused — no payment changes a write-up.

Scope Commercial relationship between platform and rank.

Practice Affiliate links on comparison pages

In place

Not run.

Scope Referral income for a click-through.

Practice Benchmarks, timed tests, deployment studies

In place

Not run — we don't have representative customer environments.

Scope A timed close is not a test we can stand behind.

Practice Treating marketing copy as a finding

In place

Refused — capability statements and capability facts are labelled differently.

Scope "Suitable for multi-entity" alone is not evidence.

Practice Saying which firm has an implementation interest

In place

In place — printed alongside the reference.

Scope Advisory writing is not neutral either.

Reading a vendor claim

How we treat vendor claims, and how we correct ourselves

A vendor saying a product is "suitable for multi-entity organizations" is a starting point, not a finding. The method below is the same one we apply on every comparison page.

Step

01

Read the mechanism

We look for how intercompany postings are created, how eliminations are reversed and re-run, and whether entity ledgers remain statutory-ready afterward. Where that detail isn't public, we say the detail isn't public — the useful version of the claim explains the mechanism, not just the outcome.

We distinguish between capability stated in product documentation and capability described only in marketing copy. Both appear in our pages, labelled as what they are. Readers who need certainty should ask the vendor to demonstrate on their own entity structure, and we say so repeatedly because it's the only reliable test.

Corrections and updates

We update pages when platform positioning or product capability changes, and when Singapore compliance requirements shift in a way that affects the workflows described. Where a correction comes from a vendor, a practitioner or a reader, we publish the correction regardless of source and don't remove the record of the change.

If a page is materially out of date and we haven't caught it yet, the contact page reaches the editorial desk. We'd rather be corrected than quietly wrong.

Send a correction Ask about our method