Expense Anomaly Detector
Vendor, category, and employee outliers vs. the trailing 6-month baseline — duplicate payments, ghost vendors, policy violations, and silent SaaS auto-renewals surfaced before close, not after the audit.
The problem
On a 100-employee company, expense leakage hides in the noise: a duplicate vendor payment that posted to a slightly different name, a ghost vendor sharing a routing number with an employee, a SaaS tool that auto-renewed at +28% without a renewal review, three Notion seats for people who left in Q1. Controllers spot maybe 20-30% of this during reconciliation because the GL coding is consistent enough to pass a glance test. Without a baseline-aware anomaly detector running before close, expense policy violations get caught at the audit (where they are ten times more expensive to remediate) instead of at the swipe.
Recovered leakage + audit-finding reduction
$28K-$80K/yr recovered per 100 employees on first sweep; 70-85% of duplicate payments caught pre-payment vs. post-audit; 40-60% reduction in close-cycle adjustment entries
ACFE Report to the Nations 2024; Vena Solutions Mid-Market Close Survey
Integrates with
How it works
Agent · Expense Anomaly Detector
·Trailing 6-mo baseline scanning
Trailing 6-mo · Ramp + Bill.com + GL
scanning · 18,422 linesIntegrates with
Related agents