Briefcase vs Silverfin: AI Working Papers Software Compared (2026)

Q: What is the main difference between Briefcase and Silverfin?

Silverfin starts after the bookkeeping is finished. It pulls the trial balance from Xero, QuickBooks, or Sage and structures the working papers, reporting and review on top of it. Briefcase starts at the beginning, capturing invoices, coding transactions, handling VAT, and reconciling the bank, then producing working papers as a natural output of that process. If the bookkeeping itself is your bottleneck, Briefcase removes more of it. If your books are clean and the slow part is review and reporting, Silverfin solves that better.

25 April 2026 · 9 min read

If you have been looking at AI working papers software for your UK practice, you have probably come across both Briefcase and Silverfin. They both promise to take work off your team. They both connect to Xero and QuickBooks. They are both pitched as cloud-native platforms built for the way modern accounting firms actually operate.

That is roughly where the similarities end. The two tools take genuinely different approaches to the problem. Picking the right one is less about feature checklists and more about understanding where your bottleneck actually is. This post walks through how each platform works, where each one is strongest, and how to decide which one fits your firm.

What Silverfin actually does

Silverfin is a cloud working papers and reporting platform that has been around since 2013. It is designed for firms that want to standardise how they prepare and review accounts across the practice. Around 30 of the top 100 UK firms use it, and it has been particularly popular with mid-sized and large practices.

Silverfin's workflow starts after the bookkeeping is complete. You connect it to Xero, QuickBooks, Sage, or another ledger and Silverfin imports the trial balance. From there, it structures the working papers using templates, runs analytics on the figures, generates reports, and tracks review notes through to sign-off. Their AI assistant can scan the file for anomalies, missing transactions, and unusual balances during the review stage.

Where Silverfin is strong:

Standardisation across the firm. Templates enforce a consistent approach so working papers look the same regardless of which manager prepared them.
Reporting. Management accounts, statutory accounts, and bespoke reports can all be built from the same data source.
Template marketplace. Firms share and sell working paper packs, which can be a useful shortcut for niche client types.
Connected analytics. Insight across the client portfolio is a real advantage for larger firms with hundreds of clients.

Where it is weaker:

It does not touch the bookkeeping. Silverfin assumes your trial balance is already clean. If your team is spending the most time on coding transactions, chasing receipts, and fixing VAT errors, Silverfin sits downstream of all that work.
Setup effort. Templates and standardisation are powerful but they take real implementation work to embed across a practice.
Cost at scale. Pricing is quote-based and tends to scale with both client volume and user count, which can make it expensive for smaller firms.

What Briefcase actually does

Briefcase is AI-native. It works out of the box with no setup, no template configuration, and no implementation project. You connect Xero or QuickBooks, point it at a client, and it starts working. The interface is designed to be simple enough that a junior bookkeeper can use it on their first day.

Rather than starting at the trial balance, Briefcase starts at the document. AI agents capture invoices, receipts, and bank statements, extract the data, determine the right nominal codes and VAT treatment, and post to Xero or QuickBooks. The same agents then build the working papers in real time, as bookkeeping happens. Prepayment schedules, accrual schedules, deferred income schedules, and the fixed asset register are constructed continuously through the month, not assembled at the end of it.

The practical effect is that by the time the month closes, the working papers are already complete. There is no separate working papers phase. There is no Excel. The amortisation of a prepayment is calculated the moment the invoice is captured. A new fixed asset purchase is added to the register the moment it is posted. A recurring expense that has not been billed yet is automatically accrued. By month-end, the schedules already exist, already reconcile, and already match the ledger.

Working papers in Briefcase include prepayment amortisation schedules, accrual schedules with month-on-month reconciliation, deferred income schedules for subscriptions and prepaid services, fixed asset registers with depreciation and disposal handling, bank reconciliation working papers, and VAT control schedules. Because the same system that posted the journal also built the schedule, there are no reconciliation gaps and no version control problems.

Where Briefcase is strong:

AI-native, no setup. No templates to build, no implementation project, no consulting engagement. Connect Xero or QuickBooks and it works. Most firms get value from week one.
Working papers built in real time. Prepayments, accruals, deferred income, and fixed assets are maintained continuously as bookkeeping happens. By month-end the schedules are already complete and already reconcile.
Takes you out of Excel. The schedules are not exports of spreadsheets. They are the source of truth, generated by the same AI that posted the journals. No more managing prepayment workbooks, no more rebuilding accrual schedules each quarter.
End-to-end automation. One integrated platform handles capture, coding, reconciliation, and working papers. The work that used to involve three or four tools and several spreadsheets collapses into one place.
Learns from the ledger. The AI does not rely on hard-coded rules. It learns from your past coding decisions, supplier patterns, and adjustments, so it gets more accurate the longer you use it.
UK-first. VAT schemes, MTD compliance, capital allowances, and HMRC filing requirements are built in rather than bolted on.
Predictable monthly pricing. Pricing is published per client with no per-user fees, which makes the cost easy to model as you grow.

Where it is weaker:

Less reporting depth than Silverfin. If your firm runs heavy custom statutory accounts production or group consolidations, Silverfin's reporting layer is more developed.
Bigger workflow change. Adopting Briefcase means moving more of your process onto one platform. Firms that just want a working papers tool to layer on top of an existing setup will find this a bigger commitment.
No template marketplace. Silverfin's marketplace can save time for niche client types. Briefcase's automation is more general-purpose.

Pricing: what each one actually costs

Pricing is the question both tools tend to be cagey about, so it is worth being concrete.

Silverfin pricing is quote-based. The platform does not publish prices on its site, and the figure depends on client count, user count, the modules you take, and the level of implementation support you need. Independent reviews and discussions in UK accounting communities place mid-sized firms between roughly £15,000 and £60,000 per year for a meaningful deployment, with larger firms paying significantly more. Implementation typically requires several weeks of consulting time on top of the licence fee.

Briefcase publishes monthly per-client pricing on the pricing page. There are no per-user fees and no implementation consultancy required. For a firm running 100 small business clients, the all-in monthly cost is materially lower than a comparable Silverfin deployment, partly because Briefcase is replacing line items in your stack (data capture tools, working paper tools, automation add-ons) rather than adding to them.

That said, comparing pricing is only useful if you are comparing like for like. Silverfin includes reporting depth that Briefcase does not. Briefcase includes data capture and bookkeeping automation that Silverfin does not. Run the comparison against your actual workflow, not a feature list.

Integrations and ledger compatibility

Both platforms support the main UK ledgers. Silverfin connects to Xero, QuickBooks, Sage, and several other systems. Briefcase connects to Xero and QuickBooks Online, with deep two-way sync. If your client base is heavily on Sage Business Cloud, FreeAgent, or other less mainstream platforms, Silverfin will cover more ground today.

One nuance: Silverfin's integration is read-only at the trial balance level. It pulls data and structures it. Briefcase writes back to the ledger continuously, posting journals, reconciling transactions, and updating attachments. The integration model is different because the role of the tool is different.

How they handle the AI question

Both platforms use the word AI heavily, but the substance is different.

Silverfin's AI is concentrated on the review stage. Their assistant scans completed working papers and the underlying trial balance for anomalies, gaps, and unusual movements. It is genuinely useful for managers who want a second pair of eyes during file review. What it does not do is build the schedules themselves. In many Silverfin deployments, prepayment workbooks, accrual schedules, and fixed asset registers still live in Excel or are rebuilt manually inside Silverfin templates each period. The AI helps you review them, not produce them.

Briefcase's AI runs across the whole workflow and actively automates the schedules themselves. AI agents capture documents, decide the nominal code, decide the VAT rate, post the journal, and reconcile to the bank. The same agents identify which transactions should be treated as prepayments, accruals, deferred income, or fixed assets, and build and maintain the supporting schedules in real time. Briefcase explicitly addresses the data quality problem by handling the bookkeeping itself rather than relying on the books being clean before it gets involved — and it pulls working papers out of Excel as a side effect.

This is the core philosophical difference between the two. Silverfin assumes the bookkeeping is solved and improves what comes next, with the schedules themselves often still being prepared manually. Briefcase assumes the bookkeeping is the problem and solves it directly — and because the AI is already in the data, it can build the working papers as it goes.

Which one fits your firm

The honest answer depends on three things.

Where your bottleneck sits. If your team is spending most of its time on data entry, coding, and chasing missing receipts, a working papers tool will not fix that. You need something that addresses the upstream work. If your bookkeeping is already clean and the slow part is review, reporting, or standardisation, Silverfin solves that better.

Your client mix. Briefcase is built primarily for SME accounting firms running Xero or QuickBooks clients. Silverfin scales further into larger and more complex client structures, including groups, charities, and businesses with bespoke reporting requirements. For a typical UK practice with 50 to 500 small business clients, Briefcase covers the territory more efficiently. For a top 100 firm with complex group structures and bespoke reporting, Silverfin remains a serious contender.

How much workflow change you can absorb. Briefcase replaces multiple tools and asks you to move more of your process onto one platform. That delivers more upside but takes more change management. Silverfin layers on top of your existing setup, which is gentler but does not solve the bookkeeping bottleneck.

The simplest test: if your team's biggest complaint is the time it takes to get the books clean, Briefcase will save you more hours. If their biggest complaint is the time it takes to prepare and review accounts after the books are clean, Silverfin will.

What to do next

Demo both. Both companies will let you trial against real client data. The hour you spend testing each on a representative client will tell you more than any feature comparison. When you do, push hard on the parts of your workflow that are genuinely painful right now. If a vendor cannot show you how their tool changes that specific bottleneck, the rest of the demo does not matter.

If you are leaning towards Briefcase, the two-week free trial includes the full platform with no feature limits. If you are leaning towards Silverfin, ask their team for a live demo against your own ledger rather than a stock dataset, and get a clear quote tied to your actual client and user numbers before committing.

Briefcase automates the entire bookkeeping workflow from capture to financial close. See how it compares to your current setup with a two-week free trial.

Start free trial

Frequently asked questions

What is the main difference between Briefcase and Silverfin?

Silverfin sits on top of the trial balance and helps with review and reporting, but the prepayment workbooks, accrual schedules, and fixed asset registers themselves often still live in Excel or get built manually inside Silverfin templates. Briefcase is AI-native and works with no setup. It captures invoices, codes transactions, handles VAT, and reconciles the bank, and the same AI builds prepayment, accrual, deferred income, and fixed asset schedules in real time as it goes. By month-end the working papers are already complete and reconciled — no Excel, no rebuild. If the bookkeeping itself is your bottleneck, or you want to get out of Excel for working papers, Briefcase removes more work. If your books are already clean and the slow part is review and statutory reporting, Silverfin solves that better.

Is Briefcase a Silverfin alternative?

It depends what you use Silverfin for. For working paper schedules, anomaly detection, and fixed asset registers, Briefcase covers the same ground from a different angle. For Silverfin's reporting templates, group consolidations, and connected client analytics, Briefcase is not a direct replacement. Most firms switching from Silverfin to Briefcase do so because they want to automate more of the bookkeeping, not because they want a like-for-like working papers tool.

How much does Silverfin cost compared to Briefcase?

Silverfin pricing is quote-based and typically scales with the number of clients and users in the firm. Independent reports and reviews place mid-sized UK firms in the tens of thousands of pounds per year for full deployment. Briefcase is published monthly per client, with pricing on the public pricing page. For a firm with 100 clients, the all-in cost of Briefcase is typically materially lower than Silverfin, partly because Briefcase replaces multiple line items (data capture, working papers, automation) rather than adding to your stack.

Can Briefcase replace Silverfin entirely?

For many small and mid-sized UK practices, yes. For larger firms with sophisticated reporting requirements, group structures, or heavy use of Silverfin's template marketplace, Briefcase covers most of the daily workflow but firms often run both side by side during transition. Talk to existing customers in your size bracket before assuming a full replacement is straightforward.