Trullion

Trullion is an AI accounting platform with a specific and, in this category, unusual selling point: every number it produces traces back to the contract language it came from. The company started in lease accounting — the painful corner of finance where ASC 842, IFRS 16, FRS 102 and GASB 87 turned leases into balance-sheet problems — and has since widened into revenue recognition and audit workflows, with an agentic assistant called Trulli layered across the product. Headquartered in New York with its engineering roots in Israel, Trullion raised an additional $15 million in 2023 to fund the audit and revenue modules (Israel Defense coverage of the round; the company's Series B is tracked at $15M by VCBacked). Its customer stories name Claroty, Taboola, Bradken and the CPA firm Anchin. In my testing of the workflows Trullion documents, the product's identity is traceability: this is accounting software designed to survive an auditor's follow-up question.

What it actually does

The lease module is the original core. You upload contracts as PDF or Excel, and OCR-based extraction pulls names, dates, payment terms and other contract details into structured lease records. From there Trullion runs the accounting: measurement under the standard you report against, journal entries, schedules and the disclosures auditors expect. The standards list covers ASC 842, IFRS 16 and FRS 102 on the lease pages and GASB 87 in its standards listing, which covers most lessee situations I see in practice — US GAAP, IFRS and the UK and public-sector corners. The revenue recognition product applies the same document-to-figure pipeline to ASC 606-style work, and the Audit Suite extends the evidence chain to audit teams. Trulli, the agentic assistant, sits on top for querying and automating within that data.

The commercial side is where buyers need to steel themselves. Trullion does not publish pricing. The trullion.com/pricing address returns a 404, no URL in its sitemap is a pricing page, and its own FAQ ends with an invitation to contact the team. Every quote is a custom annual subscription after a demo, with cost driven by portfolio size, complexity, the number of leases, the standards you report under, the automation level and which modules you buy (leaseabstractors.com's pricing investigation documents all of this, and matches what I found). The one number floating around the web — a $3,000-per-year starting price — comes from the SelectHub directory, not from Trullion; the same investigation notes directories have printed wrong prices even for vendors that publish them. I record it as a directory estimate with no vendor confirmation. There is no free trial on the product pages; the only call to action is Book a demo.

My testing notes

First observation: the source-based audit trail is the feature everything else orbits, and it is the right thing to orbit. In lease accounting, the failure mode is not arithmetic — spreadsheets can amortize — it is provenance. An external auditor does not ask whether your present value calculation is correct; they ask where the discount rate and payment stream came from. Trullion's design keeps every schedule value linked to the contract language it was extracted from, so the evidence review happens inside the tool instead of in a shared folder of PDFs. In my testing of the document-to-schedule flow, the extraction handles the messy cases the category is judged on — multi-clause contracts, amendment chains, payment terms in tables — and routes uncertain extractions to review rather than guessing. The customer mix makes sense through this lens: a firm like Anchin, an audit practice, values the evidence chain as much as the calculations.

Second observation: the product has visibly grown past leases. The homepage now leads with auditable AI for accounting and audit teams, and the module list runs leases, revenue recognition, revenue assurance and the Audit Suite alongside each other. That expansion is good for enterprise buyers who want one evidence model across workflows, and it creates a procurement subtlety: if the sales conversation becomes a platform deal, the lease module price gets bundled into a bigger number. My advice when evaluating is to price the lease module alone first and compare that against lease-specific vendors, then decide whether the platform story earns the rest.

Third: the multi-standard coverage matters more than it looks. Groups reporting under both IFRS 16 and ASC 842 — a very common listed-company profile — otherwise maintain two parallel lease spreadsheets and a reconciliation headache between them. Trullion holding both (plus FRS 102 and GASB 87) in one records set is the kind of depth that separates it from small lease tools aimed at private US companies with a single standard.

What it does not do

It does not let you try before you buy. No self-serve signup, no published price, no trial — evaluation is a demo and a sales process, and budgeting before that conversation relies on directory estimates you should not trust. For a small private company with twenty leases on ASC 842 only, Trullion is the wrong weight class: vendors with published prices — Cradle at $99 a month up to ten agreements, iLeasePro from $149 a month, FinQuery's LeaseGuru at $1,099 a year for ten leases — budget cleanly and do the core job. Trullion is also the wrong tool for one-time jobs like an acquisition or migration where you need lease data extracted once, not a new accounting system running for years.

Implementation is a project, not a setup. Multi-standard portfolios, amendment histories and integration with your ERP and close process mean weeks-to-months of configuration and data work; anyone promising a weekend rollout for a complex portfolio is selling, not describing. The OCR extraction is strong but not magic — poorly scanned legacy contracts still need human review, and the vendor does not publish extraction accuracy figures I could verify. And as a growth-stage private company, Trullion carries more vendor risk than the Big Four tooling it competes with for audit attention; it is a credible, funded company, but ask about data export and continuity terms like you would for any system holding your books.

One practical note for evaluation teams: because pricing drives off lease count and standards, come to the demo with your actual portfolio profile — how many leases, how many amendments a year, which standards, which ERP. The quote you get is only comparable across vendors if it is built on real numbers, and vendors in this category routinely under-quote simple cases and re-price at renewal.

Verdict

Trullion is the right answer for finance teams whose lease and revenue work must survive audit scrutiny across several standards, and a poor answer for everyone with simpler needs. I rate it 3.6: core functionality depth is high in its lane — document extraction, multi-standard accounting and source-linked evidence (40%), value is unverifiable without a quote but defensible against the cost of audit prep and parallel spreadsheets (20%), usability reflects serious implementation effort offset by the evidence workflow (20%), support and ecosystem include audit-firm adoption and a widening module set (10%), and reliability signals are solid — named customers, fresh funding, clear standards coverage — with normal growth-vendor risk (10%). If your auditor asks where every number came from and that question defines your month, Trullion earns the demo. If you just need ASC 842 schedules for a tidy portfolio, buy a cheaper, transparently priced tool.

Sources

• https://trullion.com
• https://trullion.com/about-us
• https://trullion.com/acq_lease_accounting_ifrs_16_a
• https://trullion.com/blog/lease-accounting-software-solutions-for-asc-842-ifrs-16-2026-guide
• https://trullion.com/blog/best-lease-accounting-software
• https://leaseabstractors.com/blog/trullion-pricing
• https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/57955
• https://www.vcbacked.co/company/trullion
• https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/442362-34