AU & NZ
SG
MY
US
IE
Access Education Finance
A comparison of finance and accounting software for schools and MATs
It can be hard to judge school finance and accounting software providers objectively from the conversations you have with sales teams. So how else can you weigh them up?
The DfE's Academies Accounts Return (AR) gives an independent picture, because every trust reports which finance system it uses, alongside its compliance and automation status. The AR covers academy trusts specifically, but the providers it captures serve maintained schools too, and the trends are a useful guide whichever you are. The DfE publishes this as its FMS comparison matrix, which anyone can use to compare providers.
This article combines that data with a closer look at each provider, so you can see not just how they are performing, but how they compare on the things that matter when you are choosing: education-specific compliance, the type of support they offer, and how well they fit a school or trust like yours.
Choosing the right education finance software
In this video, we’ll guide you through what to look – from sector-specific functionality and ease of use to integration, scalability, and security.
What separates finance software providers for schools and trusts?
Plenty of providers market themselves to the education sector, from sector specialists to general accounting tools with some education features. What actually separates them is more practical: whether the software supports the academies Chart of Accounts and can automate the submission of your DfE financial returns (the AR and BFR). That is the capability trusts are measured on, and it is what the DfE data captures. A provider can look education-ready in its marketing and still not handle these well, which is why the data is a better guide than any sales page.
Something else to bear in mind with comparisons is established providers versus newer entrants. It is easy to assume ‘established’ means dated or legacy, and new means modern, but the data does not always back this up. Some established providers are investing heavily and growing; some newer ones are still building the depth trusts need. What matters is not how long a provider has been around, but whether it is keeping pace: strong compliance, real investment in automation and new capability, and a client base that is staying – and ideally growing - rather than drifting away.
What the DfE data shows at a glance
The table below summarises the situation for each of the main financial management system providers.
| +72 (+15%) | 550 | 88% |
| +50 (+39%) | 178 | Varies by reseller |
| +34 (+62%) | 89 | 83% |
| +15 (new entrant) | 15 | 96% |
| +3 (+33%) | 12 | 78% |
| -66 (-8%) | 713 | Varies by reseller |
| -78 (-18%) | 347 | Varies by reseller |
| -82 (-46%) | 98 | 70% |
| -133 (-29%) | 319 | 43% |
Source: DfE Academies Accounts Return 2024/25, as published in the DfE's FMS comparison matrix. Sorted by growth in trust numbers over two years. Table shows the main providers; smaller providers are not listed.
One caveat before reading the numbers: the overall market has been contracting. The number of academy trusts reporting a finance system provider fell from 2,599 to 2,408 over two years, a drop of 7.3%. That matters when reading each provider's numbers, because some of that movement may reflect trusts merging rather than genuinely switching provider. The useful test is to compare each provider against that 7.3% fall. A provider shrinking faster than the market is genuinely losing customers; one growing while the market shrinks is winning them.
With that in mind, a few patterns stand out:
-
Access Education is the exception among the large, established providers. It grew by 72 trusts over two years, the only large, established provider to gain clients while the market contracted. At 88% Chart of Accounts adoption, against a 71% sector average, its compliance rate is also the highest of any provider at scale.
-
A few smaller and newer providers are also growing. Hoge (+34), the Xero resellers (+50 combined) and newcomer Iplicit (from zero to 15 trusts) have all gained ground, though from a much smaller base than the established names.
-
If your provider is declining, it is worth understanding why. ESS (−29%), Civica (−46%) and Sage (−18%) have lost trusts faster than the 7.3% the market contracted, which points to genuine client loss rather than mergers alone. If you are with one of them, it is worth asking where they are investing and how they see their roadmap. IRIS remains the largest provider but has edged down (−8%), roughly in line with the market.
-
Automation is still rare. Only 73 trusts automate their Academies Accounts Return submission, up by just one in a year, and only Hoge (22%) and XfE (14%) have any real uptake. For most trusts, automating the return, which cuts manual work and errors at year-end, is still untapped.
-
Compliance is rising, and the growing providers tend to lead it. Sector Chart of Accounts adoption climbed from 62% to 71% in a year, and the providers gaining clients are largely the same ones with above-average adoption, which suggests compliance and product quality are moving together.
What the DfE Chart of Accounts is, and why it matters when comparing finance software
The DfE Chart of Accounts (CoA) is a standardised way for academy trusts to record and report financial transactions, so that data can be compared and overseen consistently across the sector. Trusts are expected to adopt it, and it underpins the automated submission of the DfE financial returns. (Maintained schools report through the Consistent Financial Reporting framework, CFR, rather than the academies CoA, so this measure applies specifically to trusts.)
For anyone comparing providers, a provider's CoA adoption rate is one of the most useful signals in the data. It shows what proportion of that provider's trust clients have actually moved to the standard, which is a good proxy for two things: whether the software supports the CoA properly, and whether the provider has helped its customers adopt it rather than leaving them to manage manual workarounds. A rate well above the 71% sector average suggests compliance is built into the product; a rate well below it suggests the opposite.
See how Access Education Finance could work for your school or trust
How Access Education Finance compares
Access Education Finance is finance and accounting software built for schools and trusts. It is the only established, large-scale education finance provider to grow its client base over the two years. What sets it apart is breadth: it connects with Access Education Budgets, Purchasing, and HR and payroll through the Access Evo platform, so finance data flows across the trust rather than sitting in isolation. For a growing trust, that connection is often what separates a system that keeps pace from one that has to be replaced later.
The comparisons below set out how it measures up against each of the main providers, on the data already shown and on capability.
Competitor information is based on Access's market knowledge and providers' G-Cloud listings, accurate at the time of publish (August 2026). We recommend confirming current capabilities with each provider before making a decision.
Access Education Finance vs IRIS
IRIS, formerly PS Financials, is one of the largest finance providers in the academy sector by client numbers, and for many trusts it is the system they have run since they academised, sitting within a broad IRIS ecosystem that also spans HR, payroll and MIS. On the DfE data it has lost 66 trusts over two years (−8%), slightly faster than the market, while Access Education Finance has grown. The key difference: IRIS is a large established incumbent, but Access is the one growing, and far more of its trusts meet the Chart of Accounts standard, at 88% against IRIS's 63% and a 71% sector average, a good sign the system supports the standard rather than leaving trusts to manage it themselves.
For schools and trusts weighing the two:
- Curriculum-financial planning. Access Education Finance connects with Access Education Budgets, which includes integrated curriculum-financial planning (ICFP), linking staffing and curriculum decisions to the budget. IRIS's strength is established finance and reporting; but it does not offer the same integrated ICFP, instead using third-party planning tools. A trust already on IRIS Financials can connect it to Access Education Budgets and ICFP, and move finance across later if it suits the trust, rather than facing an all-or-nothing switch.
- A connected platform, not just a finance system. IRIS is a broad ecosystem of products that share data but are used as separate systems. Access Education Finance sits on the Access Evo platform so the invoices, approvals and budget variances that need a finance lead's attention are surfaced at login, and finance leaders can ask questions of their finance and trust data in everyday language and get answers back without manually drilling down into their software.
- When each fits. IRIS suits trusts already on it, with no support issues or pressing need to change. Access suits trusts keen to adopt the CoA easily, wanting integrated curriculum-financial planning, and one connected platform across finance, budgeting, HR and payroll as they grow.
Access Education Finance vs Sage
Sage Intacct for Education is a capable cloud finance system used by around 1,650 schools, sold through several independent resellers as well as directly, each adding their own setup, support and add-ons. On the DfE data, its trust base has fallen overall, down 78 over two years to 347, and Chart of Accounts adoption varies sharply depending on which reseller a trust bought through. The key difference: with Sage, a trust's experience depends heavily on which reseller it buys through, whereas Access Education Finance is one consistent, education-built offer from a single provider.
For schools and trusts weighing the two:
- You are buying a reseller, not just "Sage." Chart of Accounts adoption across Sage's resellers ranges from 48% to 98%. Support, implementation and education expertise vary just as much. If you are considering Sage, the essential question is which reseller you would be working with, and what their track record is.
- Budgeting and planning. Sage Intacct is a finance and accounting system; for budgeting and curriculum-financial planning, resellers commonly bolt on a separate third-party tool, and which one you get depends on the reseller. Access Education Finance integrates natively with Access Education Budgets, including curriculum-financial planning, as one consistent offer.
- Familiarity vs depth. Sage's appeal is often familiarity: it is a known brand, and finance staff who have used Sage elsewhere find it recognisable. Access competes on education depth, with the academies Chart of Accounts, statutory returns and curriculum-financial planning built specifically for the sector.
- More than a finance system. Sage Intacct is a capable finance and accounting system. Access Education Finance sits on the Access Evo platform, which goes further: invoices, approvals and budget variances that need attention are surfaced at login, and finance leaders can ask questions of their finance and trust data in everyday language and get an answer without going into the system to find it.
- When each fits. Sage Intacct can be a strong choice through a specialist education reseller with a good compliance and support record but it does mean the buyer needs to choose the reseller carefully. Access suits trusts that want a single, consistent offer from one education provider: native budgeting and curriculum-financial planning, a connected platform, and the same compliance and support standard regardless of who sold it.
Access Education Finance vs IMP
IMP Software is a strong presence in the MAT market, widely used for budgeting, forecasting and curriculum-financial planning. The key difference: IMP's established strength is MAT budgeting and planning, whereas Access Education Finance is an established finance system for schools and trusts of all types and sizes, with budgeting and curriculum-financial planning built in through Access Education Budgets.
- Proven finance system, or a new one. IMP's reputation is built on IMP Planner for budgeting; its accounting system, IMP Finance, is a much more recent addition and so it does not yet appear in the DfE finance data or have a track record across a full reporting cycle. Access Education Finance is an established accounting system used by 550+ trusts and schools, with years of DfE compliance data behind it, including 88% Chart of Accounts adoption.
- The connected offer. IMP is a focused MAT finance and planning specialist. Access is a connected offer across finance, budgeting, purchasing, HR and payroll from one provider. As Paul Drew, Chief Operating Officer at The Lighthouse Federation, put it after moving to Access: "We didn't want a patchwork of systems, we wanted a one-stop shop. Access Education offered exactly what we needed: a unified platform, a clear roadmap, and a team that feels like an extension of our own."
- When each fits. IMP may appeal to MATs already using IMP Planner and wanting their accounting from the same provider. Access suits schools and trusts wanting an established finance system with years of DfE data behind it, alongside budgeting and curriculum-financial planning, from one education provider that serves them whether they are a single school, a growing MAT or a local authority. For a fuller comparison across budgeting and the wider financial management offering, see our comparison of Access Education and IMP for trust finance leaders.
Access Education Finance vs Iplicit
Iplicit is a cloud accounting platform that entered the education sector in 2023 and has grown quickly. The key difference: Iplicit is a newer entrant building its education presence, whereas Access Education Finance is an established, education-built system used by 550 academy trusts, with integrated budgeting and curriculum-financial planning through Access Education Budgets.
For schools and trusts weighing the two:
- Track record in education. Iplicit is a capable modern system, but it entered education in 2023 and appears in the DfE data with 15 trusts. Access Education Finance is used by 550 academy trusts and many more single schools, with years of DfE compliance data behind it through year-end, statutory returns and audit.
- Curriculum-financial planning. The Academy Trust Handbook 2026 strengthened its expectation that trusts use integrated curriculum-financial planning (ICFP). Access Education Finance connects with Access Education Budgets, which includes ICFP, linking staffing and curriculum decisions to the budget. Iplicit offers finance and accounting, but not integrated ICFP.
- Finance alone, or finance connected to everything else. Iplicit is a dedicated finance and accounting product; for budgeting, HR and payroll a trust would bring in separate systems. Access Education Finance is one part of a connected offer, sharing data with Access Education Budgets, purchasing, HR and payroll, so a trust can run its whole finance and people operation from one provider rather than stitching several together.
- When each fits. Iplicit may appeal to a trust wanting a modern cloud accounting system and comfortable with a newer education provider. Access suits those who would rather build on a proven, education-built system, with curriculum-financial planning and the wider office systems connected from the start.
Access Education Finance vs Civica
Civica Financials is a capable MAT finance system, and Civica brings genuine public-sector experience, integration with MIS systems and a strong presence in Wales and Scotland. On the DfE data, though, its education finance base has reduced over the last two years, from 180 trusts to 98. Some of that reflects trusts merging, but Civica's reduction is steeper than the market as a whole. The key difference: Civica's trust customers have been falling while Access's have grown.
For schools and trusts weighing the two:
- Curriculum-financial planning. The Academy Trust Handbook 2026 strengthened its expectation that trusts use integrated curriculum-financial planning (ICFP). Access Education Finance connects with Access Education Budgets, which includes ICFP, linking staffing and curriculum decisions to the budget. Civica offers budgeting and financial planning, but not curriculum-linked ICFP in the same way.
- A modern, connected platform. Access Education Finance sits on the Access Evo platform, built for modern, multi-device access, with a published roadmap of regular development. Civica Financials is a capable, secure system, but its own G-Cloud service listing notes it is not designed for use on mobile devices, and integration is through pre-defined connections rather than an open platform. For trusts wanting finance data accessible across devices and connected to budgeting, HR and payroll, that is a meaningful difference.
- When each fits. Civica may suit organisations already using its wider public-sector systems. Access suits schools and trusts wanting a growing, actively developed finance system with integrated curriculum-financial planning, accessible across devices and connected across the trust.
Other finance software providers in the DfE data
Several other providers appear in the DfE data. They tend to suit particular situations rather than being direct alternatives for most schools and trusts.
- Hoge 100 is a long-established specialist (over 30 years) serving smaller trusts, and is smaller in trust numbers but growing, with above-average Chart of Accounts adoption (83%). It suits smaller trusts, where Access tends to suit those also wanting connected budgeting and planning.
- Bromcom is primarily a school management information system (MIS) provider whose finance module is integrated with its MIS, so it suits schools and trusts already using Bromcom's MIS. Its trust customer base in the DfE data is small. Access, by contrast, is a dedicated finance system rather than part of an MIS.
- ESS (SIMS and FMS6) is a long-standing name familiar to many finance teams and a straightforward continuation for schools already using SIMS or FMS6. Its trust base has fallen furthest in the DfE data, down 133 to 319, and its Chart of Accounts adoption, at 42.6%, is the lowest of the major providers, against Access's 88%.
- Xero for Education is a cloud-native general accounting platform sold into education through specialist resellers, the largest being Xero for Education (XfE), which accounts for 119 of Xero's 178 trusts. As with Sage, performance varies by reseller, so the same advice applies: ask which reseller you would work with and their Chart of Accounts adoption rate. Access, by comparison, is one consistent offer from a single provider.
For more on choosing the right system for your school or trust, see our guide to choosing the best accounting software for schools.
Still comparing finance providers?
Compare your shortlist against the DfE data and the capability differences set out above, then see Access Education Finance in action at your school or trust's scale. Our team can show you how it would work for your setup, from Chart of Accounts compliance to curriculum-financial planning and connected reporting across the trust.
What schools and trusts say about moving to Access Education Finance
"We were using one provider for finance, but it was clunky, and even though we had Access Education for budgeting, it was through a third party, making everything feel disjointed. Having worked with many schools that use Access Education software directly, I knew that bringing everything into one system would be a game-changer, streamlining processes, enhancing reporting, and making financial management far more efficient."
Frequently asked questions
What is the DfE Academies Accounts Return, and why does it matter when comparing finance providers?
The Academies Accounts Return (AR) is the annual submission every academy trust makes to the Department for Education. Because each trust reports which finance system it uses, alongside its compliance and automation status, the AR shows, across all trusts, how many use each provider and how many are meeting the DfE standard. That gives an independent picture drawn from trusts' own returns, rather than from suppliers' marketing. The DfE publishes it as the FMS comparison matrix.
Which school finance software provider is growing fastest?
On the DfE data, Access Education Finance had the largest increase of any established provider, gaining 72 trusts over two years while the overall market contracted. Some smaller and newer providers, such as Hoge and Iplicit, also grew, but from a much smaller base.
Which finance providers are losing customers?
Over the two years to 2024/25, ESS (down 133 trusts), Civica (down 82), Sage (down 78) and IRIS (down 66) all reduced. The overall market contracted by 7.3%, partly through trust mergers, so the useful test is whether a provider fell faster than that: ESS, Civica and Sage did, which points to genuine client loss, while IRIS's decline was closer to the market rate.
What is the academies Chart of Accounts?
The DfE Chart of Accounts (CoA) is a standardised structure academy trusts use to record and report financial transactions, so data is consistent across the sector. It is worth knowing when comparing providers, because a provider's CoA adoption rate – shown in the DfE data – is a good signal of how well its software supports the standard. Maintained schools report through the Consistent Financial Reporting framework instead.
Which finance provider has the highest Chart of Accounts adoption?
Among providers at scale, Access Education Finance has the highest, at 88% of its trusts, against a sector average of 71%. Iplicit shows a higher percentage (96%) but across only 15 trusts. A high adoption rate suggests the software supports the standard well, rather than leaving trusts to manage it manually.
Which finance software is best for a multi-academy trust?
It depends on the trust, but the DfE data is a useful starting point: look at which providers are growing, their Chart of Accounts adoption, and whether they connect finance with budgeting, curriculum-financial planning and HR. Access Education Finance and IMP are both strong for MATs; while Access has a long established track-record serving single schools and local authorities too.
Does it matter how many trusts a finance provider works with?
It is one signal among several. A large customer base suggests an established, well-supported product, and a growing one suggests trusts are actively choosing it. But it is worth reading alongside compliance (Chart of Accounts adoption) and direction of travel, since some large providers are declining while smaller ones grow.
Is Sage finance software good for academy trusts?
Sage Intacct for Education is a capable cloud finance system, but it is sold through several independent resellers, and Chart of Accounts adoption across them ranges from 48% to 98%. If you are considering Sage, the most important question is which reseller you would work with and what their track record is.
Do maintained schools and academy trusts use the same finance software?
Some do and some don't. Several providers, including Access Education Finance, serve maintained schools, single academies and multi-academy trusts, so the same software can be used across all three. IMP, for example, has a track record with multi-academy trusts, independent schools and FE colleges. When comparing providers, it is worth checking each one covers your type of school.
How can I compare finance providers objectively rather than relying on sales claims?
The DfE's FMS comparison matrix, drawn from the Academies Accounts Return, lets you compare providers on independent data: how many trusts use each, whether they are growing or declining, their Chart of Accounts adoption and their automation rates. It is a useful counterweight to marketing claims, because the figures come from trusts' own returns.
See how Access Education Finance could work for your school or trust
