A confirmation can take five minutes to send. It can also consume hours across an audit.
Someone prepares the request. Someone checks the details. Someone sends it. Someone monitors the response. Someone follows up. Someone investigates exceptions. Someone documents the result. If there is no response, the team may need to perform alternative procedures.
Multiply that process across hundreds or thousands of confirmations. The economics change quickly.
That is why audit confirmation software ROI should not be measured only by the software subscription fee. CPA firms should measure the full cost of the confirmation process before and after automation.
For US firms, the issue has an additional dimension. The PCAOB’s AS 2310, The Auditor’s Use of Confirmation, addresses confirmations, including electronic transmission and the auditor’s control over the confirmation process. It applies to audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after June 15, 2025.
The AICPA has also issued SAS No. 150, External Confirmations, which amends AU-C 505 and introduces changes to confirmation requirements. It is effective for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2028, with early adoption permitted.
For firms investing in confirmation technology, ROI therefore has two questions:
- How much does the firm save?
- What does the firm gain from the capacity it recovers?
Start with one confirmation
Firm-wide ROI starts with a single unit of work.
Measure the average time required to complete one confirmation from preparation through final documentation.
Include:
- Request preparation
- Client information checks
- Transmission
- Response monitoring
- Follow-ups
- Exception handling
- Reconciliation
- Documentation
- Filing and review
Then assign a realistic loaded hourly cost to the employees performing that work.
The result is the baseline confirmation cost.
Baseline cost per confirmation = total staff time × loaded hourly cost + direct processing costs
This is more useful than simply asking how much the firm spends on postage or confirmation fees.
A senior associate spending 15 minutes on a task has a different economic impact from an administrative employee spending the same amount of time. The calculation should reflect that difference.
CPA.com has previously highlighted the number of repetitive activities involved in confirmation workflows, including preparing requests, sending them, monitoring responses, and handling nonresponses.
Separate cash savings from capacity value
This distinction can materially change an ROI calculation.
Suppose automation eliminates 400 hours of confirmation administration. The firm has not necessarily reduced its payroll by 400 hours. Instead, it has recovered 400 hours of professional capacity. That capacity could be used for additional engagements, audit review, higher-value client work, training, or reducing overtime during busy periods.
Therefore, firms should maintain two calculations.
Direct financial savings: This can include reduced administrative labor, lower mailing or processing costs, reduced overtime, and fewer avoidable processing expenses.
Recovered capacity: This represents professional hours that can be redirected to productive work.
Both are economically relevant. They should not, however, be presented as the same type of saving.
That distinction makes an ROI calculation more credible.
Calculate audit confirmation cost savings
The next step is to compare the baseline with the automated process.
A simple model is:
Annual audit confirmation cost savings = annual baseline cost − annual post-automation cost
Then:
ROI = (annual financial benefit − annual software and implementation cost) ÷ software and implementation cost × 100
Consider an illustrative example.
A firm processes 2,000 confirmations each year. Its average confirmation-related labor and processing cost is $15 per request. That produces an annual baseline of $30,000. After implementation, the cost per request falls to $10. The firm’s annual operating cost becomes $20,000. Its direct annual savings are therefore $10,000. If software and implementation cost $5,000 annually, the ROI based on direct savings is:
($10,000 − $5,000) ÷ $5,000 × 100 = 100%
The calculation does not include the value of recovered professional capacity. That should be measured separately.
This approach avoids overstating ROI while still capturing the broader value of automation.
Measure the cost of nonresponse
Response rates matter. But the economic consequence of a nonresponse matters more.
A confirmation that does not arrive can trigger follow-ups and, where appropriate, alternative procedures. Those activities consume additional audit hours.
Track:
Nonresponses × average hours spent on follow-up and alternative procedures
Compare the result across audit cycles.
This does not mean software should be judged solely by whether it produces more responses. Auditors must still assess whether the evidence obtained is reliable and appropriate.
AS 2310 addresses both the auditor’s control over the confirmation process and the evaluation of confirmation responses and exceptions.
A useful technology evaluation therefore asks a broader question:
Does the platform reduce administrative friction without weakening the auditor’s control over the evidence-gathering process?
That is a more meaningful test than response volume alone.
Electronic audit confirmations are a workflow decision
Electronic audit confirmations are often discussed as a replacement for paper.
The more important change is the workflow around them.
A well-designed digital process can bring request preparation, transmission, status monitoring, responses, exceptions, and documentation into a more structured environment.
But “electronic” does not automatically mean “controlled.”
CPA firms should evaluate whether a platform supports:
- Direct transmission to the confirming party
- Appropriate authentication
- Auditor control over the confirmation process
- Secure response handling
- Confirmation status tracking
- Exception identification
- Audit trails
- Evidence retention
- Access controls
- Appropriate documentation
These controls matter because technology should support audit evidence procedures, not simply speed up communication.
The same principle applies internationally. ISA 505, External Confirmations, provides the international auditing framework for external confirmation procedures.
Five metrics that matter
A CPA firm does not need a complicated technology scorecard.
Five measures can establish a useful baseline.
1. Cost per confirmation: Calculate the total labor and direct processing cost divided by the number of confirmations.
2. Staff hours per engagement: Measure total confirmation-related hours. Break them down by role where possible.
3. Turnaround time: Measure the period from request initiation to receipt and completion of the confirmation.
4. Follow-up and nonresponse rate: Track how many requests require additional contact or alternative procedures.
5. Review and documentation effort: Measure the time spent resolving confirmation documentation issues and review notes.
Compare these figures before implementation and after several audit cycles. The objective is not to produce a perfect number on day one. It is to establish a reliable trend.
Where CPA firm audit automation creates value
The strongest CPA firm audit automation strategy does not attempt to automate professional judgment. It automates repetitive administration around professional judgment. That distinction matters.
Auditors still determine which confirmations are appropriate. They still select procedures. They still evaluate responses, investigate exceptions, and determine whether they have obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
Technology can instead reduce the administrative burden surrounding those decisions. This can create value at several levels.
- Staff level: fewer repetitive tasks.
- Engagement level: better visibility into outstanding requests.
- Manager level: less time spent chasing status information.
- Firm level: more predictable workflows and greater professional capacity.
That is why software ROI should be evaluated across the entire confirmation lifecycle rather than against a single task.
Put the numbers on one dashboard
A practical firm-level dashboard can look like this:
| Metric | Before Automation | After Automation |
| Confirmations processed | — | — |
| Hours spent | — | — |
| Cost per confirmation | — | — |
| Average turnaround time | — | — |
| Follow-ups per request | — | — |
| Nonresponse rate | — | — |
| Alternative procedure hours | — | — |
| Senior/manager hours | — | — |
| Direct annual cost | — | — |
| Software and implementation cost | — | — |
| Recovered capacity | — | — |
Review the figures across multiple audit cycles. Busy-season workload can distort a single-period comparison. Client mix can also change. A firm should therefore compare similar engagements or, where possible, use annualized data.
The goal is not to prove that the technology worked. It is to identify exactly where the workflow changed and what that change was worth.
How to evaluate a confirmation platform
Price should be one line in the evaluation, not the evaluation itself.
CPA firms should consider security, workflow controls, audit trails, evidence handling, scalability, integration, reporting, support, and coverage.
They should also assess whether the platform aligns with the firm’s audit methodology and applicable professional standards.
AuditConfirm provides a technology-based confirmation workflow that includes online confirmations, tracking, audit trails, and security-focused features. Its platform also supports PCAOB AS 2310, AU-C 505, and ISA 505 workflows.
Those capabilities should still be assessed against the firm’s own procedures and quality-control requirements.
The right comparison is therefore not simply: Software A costs less than Software B.
It is: Which solution produces measurable efficiency while supporting the firm’s required confirmation controls and audit workflow?
Conclusion
The ROI of confirmation software is not found in the subscription invoice. It is found in the workflow.
CPA firms should measure the hours spent on confirmations, the cost of follow-ups, the frequency of nonresponses, the time required for alternative procedures, and the professional capacity released through automation.
Then separate direct audit confirmation cost savings from the value of recovered staff capacity.
For US firms, this analysis also belongs within the wider evolution of external confirmation requirements. PCAOB AS 2310 and AICPA SAS No. 150 both make confirmation procedures an area where process, control and technology deserve close attention.
For firms assessing confirmation technology, AuditConfirm offers a platform designed to bring the confirmation workflow into a more structured digital process.
The final ROI number, however, belongs to the firm. It should come from its own engagement data, staff costs, and measurement of what changed.
That is the meaningful test of audit automation: not whether a confirmation became electronic, but whether the audit team can show what the new process saved, improved, and made possible.
FAQs
What is audit confirmation software ROI?
Audit confirmation software ROI measures the financial and operational value a CPA firm gains from automating confirmation workflows compared with its software and implementation costs.
How can CPA firms calculate audit confirmation cost savings?
CPA firms can calculate audit confirmation cost savings by comparing pre-automation and post-automation labor, processing, follow-up, and alternative-procedure costs.
How do electronic audit confirmations improve audit workflows?
Electronic audit confirmations can reduce manual processing, improve request tracking, centralize responses, and provide clearer documentation and audit trails.
How does CPA firm audit automation affect staff capacity?
CPA firm audit automation can reduce repetitive confirmation tasks and let audit professionals redirect recovered hours to higher-value engagement and review work.
What should CPA firms consider when evaluating confirmation software ROI?
Firms should assess audit confirmation software ROI using cost per confirmation, staff hours, turnaround time, nonresponse rates, alternative procedures, and recovered capacity.