Comparing Lease Accounting Software for FRS 102 (2026)

The revised FRS 102 Section 20 applies to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. Operating leases come onto the balance sheet, and thousands of UK and Irish companies now need calculations they have never had to produce before.

The software market has moved quickly in response. Some vendors have supported UK GAAP for years. Others added FRS 102 within the last twelve months. A few appeared only after the amendments were finalised. Telling them apart is harder than it should be, because almost every vendor in the category now has an FRS 102 page on its website.

This comparison covers the established options, what genuine FRS 102 support actually requires, and how to assess a vendor you have not come across before.

First, do you actually need software?

Plenty of entities coming into Section 20 for the first time will manage in Excel, and it is worth settling that before shortlisting anything. A handful of straightforward leases, fixed payments, no modifications expected, and a spreadsheet will do the job at no cost.

Where it stops holding is predictable. Index-linked or stepped rents mean rebuilding schedules every time the index moves. Modifications and early terminations need the liability remeasured and the asset adjusted, which is where spreadsheet errors tend to originate. Under five straightforward leases a spreadsheet is usually still the right answer. Past fifty it is hard to defend one to an auditor, because a single formula error propagates across the portfolio. In between, complexity decides it rather than count. A spreadsheet can also produce the right answer and still be hard to evidence, because the workings are the record.

We have written this up properly in Excel vs software for lease accounting. If you read it and conclude a spreadsheet still works for you, that is a legitimate answer and the rest of this article can wait.

What genuine FRS 102 support requires

FRS 102 is not IFRS 16 with a different name on the label. It borrows the same on-balance-sheet model, but four differences decide whether a system is built for UK GAAP or has simply had FRS 102 added to a feature list.

The discount rate. Where the rate implicit in the lease cannot be readily determined, FRS 102 lets a lessee choose, lease by lease, between its incremental borrowing rate and its obtainable borrowing rate. These are not two names for the same thing: the obtainable borrowing rate considers only the monetary value of the lease, not the nature or location of the asset, which is what makes it the lighter of the two to determine. A system modelled purely on the IFRS 16 incremental borrowing rate will not offer that election or hold the evidence behind the rate you chose. Our FRS 102 discount rates guide covers how to build and document one.

Transition without restating comparatives. FRS 102 uses a modified retrospective approach, with the adjustment going to reserves at the start of the current period and the right-of-use asset set equal to the liability for former operating leases, adjusted for prepayments and accruals. A system that assumes full retrospective restatement will not fit. See the FRS 102 transition guide.

Section 1A disclosures. Small entities applying Section 1A have a reduced disclosure regime, and tools designed around IFRS 16 or ASC 842 have no concept of it. Critical if you are a small entity, irrelevant if you are not.

Exemptions and disclosure. Eligible short-term and low-value leases can stay off balance sheet, but that is a recognition exemption only. The related expense and disclosure requirements still apply, and they are easy to miss when the exemption logic has been retrofitted onto an existing engine.

Put those four to any vendor directly, and treat a vague answer as the answer. If the detail is not there in the conversation, it is not there in the product. Our FRS 102 vs IFRS 16 comparison sets out the full list of differences.

The main options compared

Ranked by depth of FRS 102 support for a UK or Irish entity, which is the question this article is about. Every vendor here names FRS 102 publicly and has an established trading history. If your priority is a different one, such as servicing many clients as a practice or running a large property portfolio, the order changes, and each entry below says where it does.

1. Rubli

UK and Ireland is a core market for Rubli rather than an expansion territory. The Section 20 detail is handled in the product: the obtainable borrowing rate with rates set per entity, the modified retrospective transition including the equity adjustment, and Section 1A disclosure output. FRS 102, IFRS 16 and ASC 842 run in one platform, with multi-entity and multi-currency portfolios from a handful of leases to 20,000+. AI extraction pulls key lease terms from uploaded contracts to pre-fill the lease record, while accounting judgement stays with your finance team. An accounting question reaches a lease accounting specialist rather than a first-line queue. Rated 4.8 out of 5 from 58 reviews on G2. Full detail is on our FRS 102 lease accounting software page.

2. Crunchafi

Milwaukee-based, formerly LeaseCrunch, and built around accountancy firms and their clients rather than direct corporate use. It launched FRS 102 Section 20 support in July 2026, including Section 1A disclosures for small entities, so the UK GAAP functionality is new even though the platform is not. Rated 4.7 out of 5 from 84 reviews on G2. Pricing is per lease and not published, so if you are a firm planning to load client leases into it, establish what the full portfolio will cost before the data and the workflow are in place.

3. FinQuery

Formerly LeaseQuery, with the largest review base in the category at 4.6 out of 5 from 539 reviews on G2. It names FRS 102 alongside ASC 842, IFRS 16 and the US public sector standards, and supports dual reporting such as IFRS 16 alongside FRS 102. In September 2026 it acquired Innervision from IRIS Software Group, a long-established UK lease accounting business, and set up FinQuery UK. If you are an existing Innervision customer, ask what the product roadmap looks like: FinQuery has said Innervision customers will gain access to its wider platform over time, without saying publicly what happens to the Innervision product itself.

4. Cradle

Founded in Toronto and acquired by Prophix in November 2025. Cradle names FRS 102 alongside IFRS 16, ASC 842, AASB 16, GASB 87 and GASB 96. Rated 4.9 out of 5 from 45 reviews on G2. Lighter to set up than the enterprise options, and it publishes pricing and offers a free trial, which few here do. Confirm the Section 20 detail rather than assuming parity across six standards.

5. NetLease by Netgain

Best known for its NetSuite integration, where it runs natively inside the ERP, though a standalone version exists. It announced an FRS 102 release for UK and Ireland businesses in October 2025 alongside ASC 842, IFRS 16, GASB 87 and GASB 96, but has no dedicated FRS 102 product area. Rated 4.8 out of 5 from 187 reviews on G2. The value is in the NetSuite integration rather than in UK GAAP depth.

6. Trullion

An AI-first platform built around extracting lease data from source documents, positioned on its own site for enterprise finance functions and audit teams. Its lease product states that it is built for ASC 842, IFRS 16 and FRS 102. Rated 4.7 out of 5 from 62 reviews on G2. Its public material does not go into the Section 20 specifics, so ask how the discount rate election and Section 1A are handled.

7. House of Control

Part of Visma and based in Oslo, covering contract management alongside lease accounting. It has separate IFRS 16 and FRS 102 modules, states that the FRS 102 module follows the requirements of Section 20, and handles multi-entity and multi-currency portfolios. Its customer base is mainly Nordic and European groups. We could not identify a listing in G2's lease accounting category, so there is less independent review evidence to weigh.

8. SOFT4Lessee

Built on Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central and covering a range of standards including FRS 102. Relevant mainly if you already run Business Central, since the lease data then sits inside the ERP, though journals can be exported to other systems. It publishes pricing and offers a free trial. Its listing in G2's lease accounting category has no reviews yet, so there is less independent evidence to go on than for the larger platforms.

9. MRI ProLease

Comes from property management rather than accounting. ProLease names FRS 102 alongside ASC 842, GASB 87 and IFRS 16, but it sits within a much wider real estate suite, and the product's centre of gravity is lease administration for property portfolios rather than UK GAAP reporting. Rated 4.1 out of 5 from 35 reviews on G2, the lowest of the rated platforms here.

10. Occupier

US-based, built around lease administration for multi-location tenants such as retail, restaurant and healthcare groups. It names FRS 102 alongside ASC 842, IFRS 16 and GASB 87. Rated 4.5 out of 5 from 184 reviews on G2. Lease accounting is one part of a broader real estate workflow rather than the focus, so check how far the Section 20 support goes.

11. Sage Intacct

Sage's UK lease accounting page states alignment with IFRS 16 and FRS 102, but it points to several Sage products rather than naming one. The lease product itself is Sage Intacct Lease Accounting, an additional subscription for Intacct customers, and its own pages and help documentation name ASC 842 and IFRS 16 rather than FRS 102. That is why it sits last here. Worth a look if your finance system is already Intacct, but pin down in writing whether your edition covers FRS 102 before assuming your licence includes it. We could not identify a Sage listing in G2's lease accounting category, so there is no independent review base to weigh.

Why the largest platforms are not automatically the safest choice

Most of the platforms above came to FRS 102 from a different starting point. FinQuery, Crunchafi, Netgain, Occupier and Trullion all come out of the US market, where ASC 842 drove a compliance wave several years ahead of the FRS 102 amendments. MRI comes from property management. That starting point shapes how deeply the standard gets implemented.

FRS 102 applies to the UK and Ireland only. Set against a global product roadmap it is a small market, so UK GAAP support tends to be added after ASC 842 and IFRS 16 rather than designed alongside them. The parts most likely to be approximated are exactly the parts that differ: the obtainable borrowing rate, the Section 1A disclosure regime, and the transition mechanics.

The public record shows this if you read closely. Crunchafi added FRS 102 Section 20 in July 2026, years after establishing itself in the US. Netgain released FRS 102 support in October 2025. Sage names FRS 102 on its UK page while Sage Intacct's help documentation names ASC 842 and IFRS 16.

None of that makes them bad products. They are large, well-reviewed platforms with resources a smaller vendor cannot match, and for a group already reporting under ASC 842 or IFRS 16 that breadth is a real advantage. But if FRS 102 is your primary reporting requirement rather than a secondary one, the question worth asking is how deep the Section 20 support actually goes and how much attention the UK and Ireland market gets, rather than whether the standard appears on a feature list.

How to check any vendor's claims

Every vendor in the table says it supports FRS 102, and in this category that claim is worth testing. When we swept the market we found listings we could not confirm were real products that are shipping. These checks are how you find out what that means in each case, and they are worth running across your whole shortlist, Rubli included, rather than only on the names you do not recognise. The answers are more useful when you can compare them side by side.

• Trading history. Search Companies House in the UK or the CRO in Ireland. How long has the entity existed and has it filed accounts?
• Verified reviews across more than one platform. A handful of reviews on a single site is not evidence. Look at G2 and Capterra together, check whether review dates cluster around a single period, and see whether reviewers name their role and company size.
• Who owns the technical methodology. Is a qualified accountant involved in how the calculations are specified, and has the vendor published technical content that stands up to reading?
• Audit experience, in three parts. Completed statutory audits under the revised Section 20 are rare rather than non-existent. Early adoption was permitted, so entities that moved ahead of the mandatory date have already been through a full cycle, while a calendar-year entity adopting on time does not close its first affected period until 31 December 2026, with the audit following in 2027. So ask whether the vendor has an early adopter whose FRS 102 numbers have been audited, whether it has taken live transition calculations through review with a customer's auditor, and separately for references where its lease calculations have completed statutory audit cycles under IFRS 16 or ASC 842. The first is the strongest answer and the rarest.
• Security and data residency. Where your lease data is held, and what security certifications the vendor holds.
• Data exit. Whether you can export the full lease register, schedules, and journal history in a usable format. Ask to see an export before you sign, not after.

Run these evenly and the newer vendors are not disqualified, they simply return less. That is worth knowing rather than holding against them: it means more of your decision rests on what a vendor tells you and less on what you can independently verify.

What else to look for

The Section 20 mechanics are the qualifying test. Once two or three vendors clear it, the decision comes down to things that rarely appear in a demo and largely determine how the next few years go.

Support, and who actually answers

Two different things get sold as support. Platform support is for when the software does not do what you expected. Technical support is for when you do not know how the standard applies: whether a change is a modification or a new lease, whether a break clause changes the lease term, how to evidence a discount rate to an auditor. The second is where lease accounting consumes time, and it is the one worth testing.

Ask who answers an accounting question. A qualified accountant who knows Section 20, or a first-line agent working from a script who escalates and comes back in three days? Ask what happens when the answer is not in the knowledge base.

Timezone matters more than buyers expect. If your close runs to a UK timetable and support runs US hours, a question raised at nine in the morning gets answered mid-afternoon, and a follow-up costs another day. Across a year-end that is expensive. Ask for support hours expressed in your timezone rather than theirs, and ask what the target response time is rather than whether support is "included".

Migration

Getting data in is where implementations slip. Worth pinning down before you sign:

• Who does the work, your team or theirs, and how many hours are they assuming from you.
• What they need beyond current lease terms. Prepayments, accruals and lease incentives already recognised adjust the right-of-use asset at transition, and leases already treated as finance leases under the old Section 20 carry over at their existing carrying amounts.
• Whether migration is included in the price or quoted separately once you have committed.
• How long it takes, using a figure from a customer with a portfolio like yours rather than the brochure.

A first-time Section 20 transition adds something most vendors gloss over. You are not only loading a live register, you are asking the system to produce opening balances at the transition date, with the equity adjustment and any practical expedients applied. That is a different job, and it is worth asking whether they have done it under the revised FRS 102 specifically rather than under IFRS 16.

Features you do not need yet

The common mistake is buying for today's portfolio. The things that look irrelevant now and become urgent later are fairly consistent:

• Correcting an error after a period is closed. It will happen eventually, and how cleanly a system restates is rarely shown in a demo. The FAQ below covers what to ask.
• A second standard. Group reporting, an acquisition, or a parent that reports under IFRS 16.
• Multi-entity and multi-currency. Including entity-level discount rates, which a single-entity tool will not model.
• Lessor and sublease accounting. Easy to dismiss until you sublet space you no longer use.
• Sale and leaseback. Rare, and painful to handle outside the system when it happens.
• ERP integration. Manual journal posting is tolerable at twenty leases and not at two hundred.

This matters because switching lease accounting systems partway through is harder than the original implementation. By then you have history: modifications, remeasurements, and prior-period balances that have to carry across and still agree to accounts that have already been audited. Checking the roadmap now is cheaper than migrating twice.

How to choose

Most of the decision comes down to what kind of organisation you are:

• An accountancy firm servicing many clients. Look for multi-client management and bulk onboarding, and check the commercial model as well as the software. Referral, resale, and white-label arrangements differ a great deal in margin and in how much of the client relationship you keep. Rubli runs a partner programme covering all three, with certification and training.
• A UK or Irish company reporting under FRS 102 only. Prioritise depth of UK GAAP support, particularly the discount rate methodology and Section 1A disclosures if you are a small entity.
• A group reporting under both FRS 102 and IFRS 16. Prioritise dual-standard support with entity-level discount rates, and check that both standards are genuinely native rather than one being a variant of the other.
• A property-heavy portfolio. Prioritise lease administration alongside accounting, and check how rent reviews and break clauses feed the calculations.
• Already on a major ERP. Check whether an embedded option exists before buying a standalone tool.

Whichever group you fall into, ask early about the practical minimum annual cost for a portfolio like yours. Most vendors do not publish pricing at all. The ones that do tend to lead with a low entry tier covering a handful of leases on a single entity, which is rarely what a real FRS 102 portfolio looks like once you add entities, modifications, and disclosure requirements. Entry points across the category vary by an order of magnitude, and several of the enterprise platforms are shaped around finance functions far larger than a typical FRS 102 filer. You can spend weeks in a sales process before that becomes apparent.

Once you have a shortlist, the quickest way to separate the vendors is to stop reading feature lists and put a real lease in front of each of them. Take one of your more awkward ones, something with an index-linked uplift or a break clause, and ask each vendor to produce the transition calculation and the disclosure note from it. The answers diverge quickly, and you learn more in an hour than in a month of demos.

We will go first. Send us your most awkward lease and we will run it through Rubli live: the obtainable borrowing rate, the transition entry, and the disclosure note your auditor will read. Book a demo and bring the difficult one.