Why do public-company CFOs need a different FP&A software evaluation framework?

Public companies carry obligations private companies don't — SOX 404 and ICFR attestation, CEO/CFO certifications under Sections 302 and 906, PCAOB inspection exposure, and increasing SEC scrutiny of AI used in financial reporting. Standard vendor scorecards optimized for UX and forecast accuracy don't capture whether the platform will survive external audit or an SEC AI-disclosure review.

What are the seven dimensions in the CFO evaluation framework?

SOX & ICFR readiness (20%), close orchestration & audit trail (15%), data lineage & source-of-record fidelity (15%), AI governance & explainability (10%), integration fit with ERP and consolidation (10%), time-to-value at enterprise scale (15%), and 3-year total cost of ownership (15%). Two overrides can veto a high scorer: a SOX veto and an AI-governance veto.

What's the difference between SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II — and why does it matter here?

SOC 2 reports on security, availability, and confidentiality controls at the service organization. SOC 1 reports on controls relevant to a customer's internal control over financial reporting. For an FP&A platform that touches numbers reported to the SEC, external auditors typically require SOC 1 Type II — SOC 2 alone is not sufficient for an ICFR-in-scope system.

How should CFOs evaluate AI features in FP&A software for SEC compliance?

Ask for a documented model inventory, driver-level explainability grounded in observable evidence, mandatory human-in-the-loop for outputs feeding reported numbers, first-class capture of every override, alignment with your model-risk framework, and a vendor posture on evolving SEC AI-disclosure guidance. If any of these is missing, apply the AI-governance veto.

Should CFOs evaluate the planning platform and the execution layer together?

No. Treat them as two separate decisions. The planning platform (Pigment, Anaplan, Workday Adaptive, Oracle EPM) is where you model and report. The execution layer runs the operational work that feeds the platform — BvA, accruals, FX, flux, cash. Bundling the decisions either overspends on the platform doing work it wasn't designed for, or underspends on execution and stalls the platform investment.

How long should a public-company CFO's FP&A software evaluation take?

A well-run evaluation takes 90 days: 15 days of internal alignment and weighting with the audit committee and external auditor, 30 days of structured RFP against the seven-dimension checklist, 15 days of finalist demos on your own data, 15 days of scale-matched reference calls focused on SOX evidence acceptance, and a 15-day paid pilot with the top finalist. Contract only after the pilot proves the scorecard.

FP&A Software for Public Companies: A CFO's 2026 Evaluation Framework (with SOX-Aware Vendor Scoring Checklist)