You Sign the SOX 302
Every Quarter.
Are You Certain?
Your AP team reviews 2% of invoices manually. FraudGuard reviews 100% of transactions in under 500ms — before they post. The $14.8M you’re missing isn’t in that 2%.
Manual Review vs. AI Coverage
The gap between what your team reviews and what actually happens
Manual AP Review
FraudGuard AI
Month-End Close: 12 Days → 4 Days
Automate the manual verification that consumes your finance team
| Activity | Before | After FraudGuard | Time Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicate invoice review | 4 days | 0 hours (automated) | 4 days |
| Three-way match reconciliation | 3 days | 2 hours (exceptions only) | 2.75 days |
| Vendor dispute resolution | 5 days | 1 day (audit trail ready) | 4 days |
| SOX control documentation | 3 days | 0 hours (auto-generated) | 3 days |
| Contract compliance review | 2 days | 1 hour (flagged items only) | 1.9 days |
| Total Close Cycle | 12 days | 4 days | 8 days saved |
SOX 302 Certification — With Certainty
Transform every SOX control from reactive to continuous
First-Year P&L Impact Model
Across 8 financial impact categories
Model based on $500M–$2B revenue enterprise. Your CFO brief includes a custom calculation.
CFOs Who Signed With Certainty
I signed SOX 302 for six years not knowing what I didn't know. FraudGuard showed me $8.2M in transfer pricing exposure in the first 11 days. That alone justified three years of license fees.
Month-end close went from 12 days to 4 days. My team stopped being auditors and started being analysts. The board noticed in the first quarter.
The duplicate payment engine paid for the entire platform in 6 weeks. We had a vendor running the same invoice through three subsidiaries for 14 months. SAP approved every one of them.
Every Quarter You Wait Costs $8.3M
$14.8M annually ÷ 4 quarters = $3.7M per quarter in undetected fraud. Plus $4.6M in operational inefficiency. The cost of delay is measurable.