- Rillet and Aderis are both AI-native but differ in how far AI executes itself. At Rillet, AI prepares and finance approves. At Aderis, AI executes defined routine processes itself within set rules and escalates only exceptions to finance.
- Rillet is strongly geared towards the US market: the focus is on American accounting and compliance requirements and the finance processes of SaaS companies.
- Aderis is geared towards Switzerland and the EU: the focus is on local accounting and compliance requirements and secure data hosting in Switzerland and Europe. Local payment standards and direct banking connections are part of the platform architecture.
Rillet comes from the US finance environment and positions itself in particular for fast-growing SaaS, fintech and technology-driven companies. Aderis develops Live Finance in and for Switzerland and Europe. Local accounting, banking, governance and data requirements are therefore at the centre of its AI-native automation.
For CFOs in the DACH region, this is exactly the level that matters. A finance platform must do more than automate and consolidate transactions. It also has to work with local banks, tax requirements, retention obligations, legal entities and European data requirements.
Rillet vs. Aderis: what is the fundamental difference?
At first glance, Rillet and Aderis look similar. Rillet describes itself as an AI-native ERP with a real-time general ledger as the system of record. AI agents support or take over reconciliation, accruals and flux analysis, among other tasks. Multi-entity, multi-currency, consolidation and revenue recognition run within the same platform.
Aderis also follows an AI-native approach but draws the boundary more widely around the finance function. Order to Cash, Purchase to Pay, Record to Report and Treasury run on a shared Finance Core. Beneath them sit multi-entity, multi-ledger, multi-currency, integrations, controls and data residency.
The difference shows above all in the geographical starting point.
Rillet has its roots in the US market. Its focus is accordingly on American accounting standards, compliance requirements and tax processes. The platform frequently refers to US GAAP and 1099 processes. Internationally, it has since caught up with support for VAT and individual country-specific tax rates.
Aderis has been designed for the requirements of the Swiss and European market from the outset. For CFOs in DACH, this is a decisive difference: local accounting standards, regulatory requirements, data storage and direct bank connections are part of day-to-day finance operations and are integrated into the platform accordingly.
The table already shows why the comparison turns out differently for European CFOs than for a US SaaS company.
Rillet and Aderis are both AI-native. So where is the difference?
In traditional ERP comparisons, it is often possible to distinguish between an existing ERP with AI extensions and an AI-native platform. With Rillet and Aderis, this distinction does not work.
Rillet itself was built for AI-native accounting. The general ledger processes financial events continuously, and Aura agents work directly on this data foundation. Rillet describes its own approach as a shift from system of record to system of action. Aderis follows a similar architectural principle. Here too, AI is part of the Finance Core rather than an additional AI add-on. The relevant difference therefore lies one level deeper.
How far does autonomous execution go at Rillet and Aderis?
At Rillet, AI agents work according to a propose-and-approve model. The company publicly emphasises that AI actions are logged and that entries are not posted without human approval. The agents prepare postings and actions, log their steps and submit them to the finance team for approval before they are posted.
Aderis also defines the rules before execution but shifts a larger part of this control into the rules of the system. The CFO and the finance team define permissions, thresholds, approvals and escalations in advance. Within this framework, AI agents can execute recurring processes autonomously. Only exceptions, or cases outside the defined rules, are submitted to the finance team.
For CFOs, this is an important distinction, because the decisive contrast lies in the control model: Rillet places human approval before the posting. Aderis places human control more firmly before the rule and on the exception. In other words: at Rillet, people remain part of each individual approval more often. At Aderis, people define the framework within which the platform executes autonomously.
Why DACH means more than VAT for a finance platform
International finance platforms can now often handle multiple entities, currencies and VAT rates. For companies that run their finance function in Switzerland, Germany or Austria, however, that is not enough.
A finance system has to answer questions such as:
- How are tax and statutory ledgers kept in parallel?
- Where is financial data stored?
- How are retention and traceability implemented?
- How are local banks connected?
- Which payment formats are supported?
- How are approvals documented?
- And can an entity operate according to local requirements while the group consolidates on a shared financial architecture?
Rillet has since extended its international coverage and documents EU bank feeds, VAT/GST functions and Swiss and Austrian VAT rates, among other things. The publicly available product information, however, currently contains no comparable statements on GeBüV or GoBD readiness, Swiss banking, QR-bill, CAMT or Swiss or explicit EU data residency.
Aderis covers this level considerably more broadly. The platform is developed in and for Switzerland and Europe, supports GeBüV and GoBD requirements and hosts customer data in Switzerland and the EU. Swiss banking is embedded directly in continuous finance processes; ISO 20022, QR-bill and CAMT are also supported.
For CFOs, the difference therefore lies not only in functional coverage but in implementation and operational risk: the more local requirements are already anchored in the platform, the less has to be additionally checked, adapted or solved through third-party systems during the project.
For a US-led group with a single German subsidiary, this difference may be less decisive; a global standard solution may be sufficient there.
For companies whose finance function itself is run in DACH, by contrast, regional depth quickly becomes a selection criterion.
Swiss / EU banking: integration is more than a bank feed
A bank feed brings transactions into the finance system. For Live Finance, that is not enough. What matters here is whether banking itself is part of the continuous finance process.
Aderis connects Swiss banks directly to the Live Finance Platform via bLink from SIX. Payment orders can be transmitted from finance to the bank, while account and transaction data flow back and are continuously reconciled with open receivables and payables.
ISO 20022, QR-bill and CAMT are supported, among others. Via bLink and the ESPRIT Network, numerous Swiss banks can be connected.
Rillet documents EU bank feeds and automated bank reconciliation. A comparable direct integration into the Swiss banking infrastructure is currently not publicly stated.
For Swiss CFOs, this is more than an integration question: payments, bank data and reconciliation remain within the same finance process. The result is fewer system switches, fewer manual handovers and a more current view of cash, open items and liquidity.
Multi-entity: what matters is what has to be run in parallel
The selection question here is not: can the system consolidate several entities? It is: can it run the different ledgers, currencies and reporting requirements of these entities in parallel and consistently?
Rillet covers the core multi-entity requirements: hierarchical entity structures, intercompany eliminations, multi-currency and continuous consolidation.
Aderis covers these requirements as well and adds a multi-ledger model. Statutory, tax, management and group ledgers can be run in parallel from the same posting base.
For CFOs, this difference becomes relevant as soon as a group not only has to consolidate several entities but also has to reflect different local and group-wide requirements at the same time.
Rillet is a good fit when the focus is on multi-entity consolidation and group-wide reporting. Aderis becomes particularly relevant when several ledger logics also have to be run in parallel, for example for local accounting, tax, management reporting and group reporting.
In Europe in particular, this can make the difference. The more jurisdictions, tax logics and reporting levels come together, the more important it becomes whether these requirements are run within the same architecture or have to be brought together through additional reconciliations and side calculations.
Continuous Close: similar goals, different operating models
On the close, too, the two platforms are closer together than they would be in a traditional ERP comparison. Rillet speaks of a “zero-day close”. Transactions are processed continuously, reconciliations are automated and consolidated reports are updated continuously.
Aderis calls this approach Continuous Close: Record to Report, bank reconciliation, journal entries, accruals, fixed assets, VAT and reporting are processed continuously during the period. The month-end close remains in place but becomes the control point of a system that is already continuously current.
The difference is therefore less a matter of real-time or not; it is, again, about embedding: at Aderis, Continuous Close is part of a broader Live Finance model of continuous execution, banking, parallel ledgers, controls and European finance infrastructure.
Data residency and governance: not a side issue for CFOs
Rillet is SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II audited, encrypts data and documents its GDPR compliance. The platform runs on AWS. Aderis hosts financial data in Switzerland and the EU. Data residency is therefore not only a security topic but part of the platform architecture. Permissions, approval workflows and audit trails are likewise anchored in the Platform Engine and integrated into execution.
For CFOs, this is not only about IT security. What matters is whether data storage, access rights and control mechanisms fit their own regulatory and internal risk framework.
For internationally active companies, both may be sufficient. Companies that follow explicit requirements for storing financial data in Switzerland or the EU, however, should clarify this question early in the selection process.
With AI-native finance platforms in particular, this question gains importance. These systems do not only store documents and postings; they process financial data continuously and make it available to AI agents for defined tasks. Companies with clear requirements for storing and processing financial data in Switzerland or the EU should therefore treat data residency as a selection criterion rather than leaving it to the security review.
Which platform suits which company?
Rillet should be considered in particular if:
- the company is strongly US-oriented
- the finance organisation works primarily to US GAAP and US requirements
- SaaS and subscription business models make up a large part of the business
- ASC 606 and revenue recognition are central requirements for the finance system
- the internal control model requires agents to prepare actions that are consistently approved before execution
- and the existing system landscape is strongly geared towards typical US SaaS and fintech applications
Aderis is particularly suitable if:
- finance is run in Switzerland, Germany, Austria or several European markets
- local accounting and banking requirements are a central selection criterion
- several entities, ledgers, currencies and jurisdictions are managed together
- existing operational systems are to remain connected
- banking is to be integrated directly into continuous finance processes
- AI agents are to execute defined finance tasks autonomously within built-in rules, permissions and controls
- and data residency in Switzerland or the EU is part of the governance requirements
Conclusion: two AI-native platforms, but not the same financial reality
The differences become relevant where the requirements become more concrete.
Rillet is strongly geared towards US-oriented SaaS companies. Multi-entity, revenue recognition, real-time reporting and continuous accounting are at the core of its model.
Aderis starts more firmly from the finance function in Switzerland and Europe. Multi-entity, multi-ledger and multi-currency run on a shared Finance Core. Local banking infrastructure, data residency, controls and DACH-specific requirements are part of the same architecture.
For CFOs, it is therefore less decisive which platform lists more AI functions. What is decisive is which financial reality the architecture was built for.
For a US-oriented SaaS company, Rillet may fit the existing finance model better. For companies that run finance in Switzerland and Europe and want to combine local requirements with an AI-native finance architecture, Aderis is designed more specifically for those requirements.
