REPORT · FINANCE RESEARCH
Time-to-Close Benchmark · 2026
Monthly close durations across 186 mid-market finance teams, correlated with stack architecture.
- 186finance orgsTeams studied
- 2.4daysMedian close · single-system
- 5.1daysMedian close · hub-spoke
- 8.7daysMedian close · fragmented
ABSTRACT
What the data says.
We measured the monthly close duration for 186 mid-market finance teams over Q3 2025 and Q1 2026. Close time correlated less with headcount and more with how many systems a single close journal line needed to touch before settling.
METHODOLOGY
How we measured.
Self-reported close time confirmed by audit-trail extracts (anonymized). Companies were grouped by stack architecture: single-system (Aixys-like), hub-and-spoke (one central ledger, many sources), or fragmented (three or more independent books).
BENCHMARKS · KEY MEASUREMENTS
The receipts.
- Teams studied0finance orgs
- Median close · single-system0days
- Median close · hub-spoke0days
- Median close · fragmented0days
VISUALIZATION · INTERACTIVE
See the trend.
Toggle either series to isolate. Hover the chart to inspect values at each datapoint.
FINDINGS · WHAT WE LEARNED
The pattern.
Architecture beats headcount, 2-to-1.
Going from a fragmented architecture to a single-system architecture was associated with a 4.3-day median reduction; doubling headcount in a fragmented architecture yielded a 2.1-day median reduction.
Audit prep scales with architecture too.
Single-system teams spent a median 3.2 hours per quarter on audit prep. Fragmented teams spent 47 hours.
Hub-and-spoke is a half-measure.
Teams that had a central GL but still reconciled against 3+ independent systems were, on several metrics, worse off than teams that committed to either extreme.
APPENDIX · SOURCES
Where the numbers came from.
- 01Aixys Finance Benchmark Survey, 2025-2026
- 02APQC Financial Close Benchmarking
- 03Blackline Annual Close Report, 2025
NEXT STEP