Jirav vs Clockwork: Which FP&A Platform Fits Your Firm?

If you’re running an accounting or fractional CFO firm and evaluating FP&A software, Jirav and Clockwork are likely on your shortlist. Both platforms serve accounting firms delivering advisory and forecasting services to clients — but they take fundamentally different approaches to financial modeling, implementation, and scalability.

This guide breaks down how Jirav and Clockwork compare across the features that matter most to firms managing multiple client engagements: modeling depth, forecasting methodology, integrations, reporting, and total cost of ownership.

See Jirav in action → Request a personalized demo

Jirav vs Clockwork at a Glance

Before diving into the details, here’s a high-level snapshot of where each platform stands:

Financial Modeling: Depth vs. Automation

This is where the two platforms diverge most significantly. Jirav is built around driver-based financial modeling — the same methodology used by enterprise FP&A teams. You define assumptions, create custom drivers, and build formulas that connect revenue, expenses, headcount, and cash flow into a unified, dynamic model.

That means when you change a single assumption — say, a client’s projected revenue growth rate — it cascades through the P&L, Balance Sheet, and Cash Flow statement automatically. For firms whose clients carry bank debt, report to boards, or need investor-ready financial packages, this level of modeling depth isn’t optional. It’s the deliverable.

Clockwork takes a different approach. Their platform uses AI to automatically generate financial models based on the data synced from QuickBooks or Xero. The advantage is speed: you can have a basic model and dashboard ready within minutes of connecting a client’s GL. The tradeoff is flexibility. When a client’s situation demands custom modeling logic — industry-specific drivers, or non-standard revenue recognition — AI-generated templates can hit a ceiling.

If your firm’s advisory work involves standardized monthly packages where speed-to-insight matters most, Clockwork’s automation is compelling. If your clients need the kind of bespoke financial models that replace complex Excel workbooks, and you are positioning your firm as delivering CFO and Controllership level services, Jirav gives you the control to build exactly what they need.

Forecasting: Forward-Looking Planning vs. Automated Projections

Jirav’s forecasting engine supports full 3-statement forecasting: P&L, Balance Sheet, and Cash Flow, all interconnected. You can build rolling forecasts, annual operating plans, and long-range projections with driver-based assumptions that reflect how each client’s business actually operates.

This is a critical distinction for firms advising clients who need more than a P&L forecast. If your client’s bank requires a 12-month rolling cash forecast, to maintain a line of credit, or their board needs a full balance sheet forecast to evaluate a potential acquisition, Jirav handles all three statements natively.

Clockwork’s forecasting model updates as new data syncs from the GL, which is useful for ongoing monitoring. However, the emphasis is on automated projections rather than the manual, assumption-driven forecasting that gives firms full control over the methodology behind the numbers.

For advisory engagements where the “why behind the forecast” matters as much as the numbers themselves — where you’re presenting methodology to a CFO or audit committee, not just a dashboard — the driver-based approach gives you the transparency to defend every line.

Integrations and Data Connectivity

Both platforms connect to QuickBooks Online, Desktop, and Xero, the two primary GL systems used by the accounting firms in this space. Jirav extends further with native integrations for NetSuite, Sage Intacct, Gusto, BambooHR, Paylocity, ADP, and ability to bring in operational data from CRMs, Data Warehouses, and Spreadsheets.

For firms whose clients run on mid-market ERPs like Intacct or NetSuite — or who need workforce planning data from HRIS systems — Jirav’s broader integration library eliminates the need for manual data imports or middleware. Clockwork’s integration set is tighter, focused primarily on QBO and Xero with payroll connections.

If your client base runs almost exclusively on QuickBooks Online, both platforms will serve you well. If your firm is scaling into more complex client engagements with multiple data sources, Jirav’s integration depth becomes a significant advantage.

Ready to see how Jirav handles your most complex clients?  Book a demo.

Reporting and Client Deliverables

Both Jirav and Clockwork offer dashboards and reporting capabilities, but the approach differs. Jirav provides industry-specific dashboard templates — pre-built for SaaS, professional services, nonprofits, manufacturing, and other verticals — that firms can customize per client. Reports can include plan-vs-actual variance, rolling forecasts, scenario comparisons, and full financial statement packages.

Clockwork offers AI-powered alerts and custom metrics dashboards. Their “Mira” AI analyst can surface insights and anomalies in client data, which is useful for firms that want proactive monitoring without manually digging through reports.

The choice here depends on what your clients expect as a deliverable. If your advisory engagement is built around a monthly or quarterly financial package — with a full financial model, scenario analysis, and board-ready formatting — Jirav’s reporting tools are designed to produce that output. If your model is more about ongoing monitoring with exception-based alerts, Clockwork’s AI-first approach may suit the workflow.

Scalability: Managing a Portfolio of Clients

Both platforms are built for accounting firms managing multiple clients, but Jirav was purpose-built for this from the ground up. Jirav’s partner program includes wholesale pricing for firms, with a dedicated client management workflow that lets you templatize models, clone configurations across clients, and manage a growing portfolio without rebuilding from scratch.

Clockwork also supports multi-client management and offers its Champion program for firms. Their per-client pricing model means costs scale linearly as you add clients, so it’s important to model the total cost based on your expected client count.

For firms that have 15, 30, or 50+ active FP&A engagements and need to standardize their advisory delivery, the platform’s ability to templatize and scale — without sacrificing model depth per client — is the key evaluation criterion.

Implementation and Support

Clockwork’s headline is speed: connect your client’s QBO or Xero account, and AI builds an initial model in minutes. For firms evaluating their first FP&A tool or testing with a small number of clients, this low-friction entry point is a genuine advantage.

Jirav’s implementation is more involved, reflecting the depth of customization available. Most firms are fully operational within days, not weeks, and Jirav provides dedicated onboarding support to help build initial models, configure integrations, and train team members. The upfront investment in setup pays off when you need to modify or extend models as client needs evolve.

Both platforms offer ongoing support. Clockwork provides a dedicated Coach through their Champion program. Jirav’s customer success team is consistently praised in user reviews for responsiveness and depth of knowledge. Jirav also offers daily office hours for partner firms.

Who Should Choose Jirav?

Jirav is the right choice for firms that:

• Deliver bespoke, driver-based financial models to clients — not just automated dashboards
• Need full 3-statement forecasting (P&L, Balance Sheet, and Cash Flow) for clients with bank covenants, board requirements, or investor reporting
• Manage a portfolio of 10–50+ client engagements and need to scale advisory delivery without sacrificing model quality
• Work with clients on mid-market ERPs (NetSuite, Intacct, Quickbooks Desktop) or need operational data integrations beyond the GL
• Are replacing complex Excel models and need the same level of flexibility in a cloud platform

Who Should Choose Clockwork?

Clockwork may be the better fit for firms that:

• Prioritize speed to value and want AI-generated models without extensive manual configuration
• Primarily serve clients on QuickBooks Online or Xero without complex multi-entity consolidation requirements
• Want automated, AI-driven alerts and insights as the core advisory deliverable rather than custom financial models
• Are testing FP&A advisory with a small number of clients before committing to a more customizable platform

The Bottom Line

Jirav and Clockwork both serve accounting firms delivering FP&A advisory services, but they optimize for different things. Clockwork optimizes for speed and AI-driven automation — getting you from GL connection to client dashboard as fast as possible. Jirav optimizes for depth and control — giving you the tools to build, customize, and scale financial models that match the complexity of your clients’ businesses. This gives you true CFO and Controllership advisory.

For firms whose advisory work is built around rigorous, driver-based financial modeling — the kind of work that replaces Excel, satisfies bank requirements, and holds up in board presentations — Jirav provides the depth to deliver at that level across a growing client portfolio.

Ready to see Jirav in action? Request a personalized demo for your firm →