Upload two files, or one file with two sheets — bank statement vs. ledger, account-level trial balances, two versions of the same accounts, anything you need to reconcile. No date column? We'll match by account number instead.
Comparing two files against each other? You're in the right place. Checking just one file for errors? Try Single File Audit instead.
Matches by date and amount — or by account/reference number when there's no date column at all.
Catches transactions recorded as opposite signs, or flagged as a different currency, between the two files.
Flags likely matches with similar (not identical) descriptions for your own review — never auto-matched.
Flags repeated postings within a file, and rows that look like Total/Subtotal lines rather than real transactions.
Surfaces statistically unusual transactions, your largest transactions, and your most frequent counterparties.
The moment your totals don't match, we automatically search for the specific transaction or combination causing it.
In our own side-by-side test on 200+ transactions, a general AI chat caught the same issues we did — so we won't pretend otherwise. But run the identical file through it twice, and the reported totals can drift between runs. Sheet Audit computes results the same fixed way every time — no drift, ever.
A location you can actually trust. In a follow-up test on a 1,000-row file, ChatGPT did attempt row citations — but every single one was off by exactly 3 rows, matching the ID number embedded in each transaction's description rather than its real position in the file. On real bank data, where descriptions repeat with no embedded ID, that same behavior would point nowhere at all. Sheet Audit reads the actual row, every time.
Coming soon: with continued use, Sheet Audit will start recognizing patterns specific to your own business — recurring timing differences, familiar vendors, a tracked reconciliation health score over time — building institutional memory a single AI conversation can't replicate.