Two companies can both sell accounts payable outsourcing and sit on opposite sides of a line that decides most of what matters. One keys your invoices, codes them, and hands back a payment run for someone inside your firm to release. The other pulls funds out of your account and pays your suppliers from an account it controls.
Those are different businesses. They fall under different law, they fail in different ways, and they earn their money from different places. Before any feature comparison, sort the market on one question: does this provider ever hold or move your money, and how does it get paid for doing it?
Sort Accounts Payable Outsourcing Companies by Where They Sit Relative to the Money
Accounts payable (AP) outsourcing means handing some part of the invoice-to-payment cycle to an outside provider, and which part you hand over decides everything else. It covers at least five business models, and they line up on one axis: how close the provider gets to the money leaving your bank. Only the fifth touches it, and a provider lands there by what it does with the money rather than by what it calls the service. The legal shape of the purchase changes at that boundary.
Invoice Capture and Coding Shops
This is the narrowest model. Documents go in, structured data comes out into your ledger, and the provider handles keying, coding to the general ledger account, and duplicate checks. Nothing else moves. Buy this when the bottleneck is document volume rather than judgment, and expect pricing per document or per line rather than per seat.
Record-Only Providers That Prepare a Payment File
These providers run the record half of the cycle: invoice receipt, coding, matching against the purchase order and the delivery record, supplier queries, and a proposed payment run. The output is a batch waiting in your system for an approver inside your firm. The provider never holds funds and never instructs your bank, so nothing in the arrangement turns on money transmitter licensing.
Full-Cycle Managed Accounts Payable
Here the provider runs the cycle end to end, usually on its own platform, and usually including payment scheduling. The name covers two very different arrangements, so the scope schedule decides which one you are buying. Some managed providers still stop at a prepared run that your firm releases. Others hold a funding account and pay out of it, which puts them in the fifth category no matter what the brochure calls the service.
Dedicated Offshore Staff Working Inside Your Ledger
These providers place named people who work your process in your systems, on your approval chain, with your bank untouched. What you rent is capacity, not a process, so continuity and training become the questions that matter. The exposure is credentials rather than custody: someone outside your firm holds a login to the system that pays your suppliers, which is a permissions problem to solve and not a licensing one.
Payment Execution Providers
These providers initiate the disbursement. Funding arrives by a draw from your account into an account they control, or through a card program they administer, and the money reaches your supplier over their banking relationship rather than yours, whether it travels by wire, by the Automated Clearing House network that banks use for batched transfers, or on a card. This is the category that raises the licensing questions, and a provider can land in it while selling itself on invoice processing.
A provider's website will rarely tell you which of the five you are looking at. The scope schedule will, and so will a funding flow diagram, which any provider that touches money should already have drawn.
Does the Provider Take Custody of Funds, or Only Instruct Your Bank?
Ask this as a question about what happens to the funds rather than about the software, because that is where the federal definition looks, and it does not stop at custody.
Under the Bank Secrecy Act regulations, a money transmitter is a person that provides money transmission services, and the term means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means" (31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A)). The same paragraph then sweeps in "Any other person engaged in the transfer of funds" (31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(B)). A money transmitter is one of the business types the same regulation groups as a money services business (MSB), a list that also names dealers in foreign exchange, check cashers and providers of prepaid access, and that expressly excludes banks.
The carve-out that providers reach for is the payment processor exemption, and its wording rewards a close reading. A money transmitter does not include a person that only "acts as a payment processor to facilitate the purchase of, or payment of a bill for, a good or service through a clearance and settlement system by agreement with the creditor or seller" (31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)(B)), while a separate carve-out reaches a person that "accepts and transmits funds only integral to the sale of goods or the provision of services, other than money transmission services, by the person who is accepting and transmitting the funds" (31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)(F)). Both are anchored on the seller's side of the transaction. An AP provider is engaged by the buyer.
The regulation is then explicit about the limits of any label: "Whether a person is a money transmitter as described in this section is a matter of facts and circumstances" (31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)). That is why the answer has to come from the provider rather than from a category name, and why a provider that has genuinely worked through it can name the exemption it relies on and explain the fit.
If the Answer Is Yes, Find Out Who Holds the Registration
FinCEN states that with few exceptions each money services business must register with the Department of the Treasury, that the form must be filed within 180 days after the date the business is established, that registration must be renewed every two years, that a copy and its supporting documentation must be kept in the United States for a period of five years, that failure to comply can carry a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation, with each day a violation continues counting as a separate violation, and that doing business without complying can carry a criminal fine and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years (FinCEN, Money Services Business Registration).
The same page carves out the agent. A person that is an MSB solely because it serves as an agent of another MSB is not required to register, while a person that is an MSB both on its own behalf and as an agent of another MSB must register. So a plain "no, we are not registered" settles nothing until you know whose registration your payment runs under.
The renewal clock is the practical part. A registration confirmation from three years ago proves nothing about today, so ask for the registering entity's legal name and check it yourself against the agency's own MSB Registrant Search rather than accepting a screenshot. That is the same discipline that separates a real credential from a badge on a homepage, worked through for a different claim in choosing a payroll outsourcing company.
State Licensing Runs on a Separate Test, and the Usual Exemption Faces the Supplier
A federal registration is not a state license, and a state license is not a federal registration. A provider that moves money needs both answered, and the state answer is per state.
California is a useful worked example because its statute is explicit. Money transmission there includes "Receiving money for transmission from a person located in this state", and receiving money for transmission means "receiving money or monetary value in the United States for transmission within or outside the United States by electronic or other means" (California Financial Code section 2003). The licensing rule that follows leaves three ways out and no more: a person "shall not engage in the business of money transmission in this state, or advertise, solicit, or hold itself out as providing money transmission in this state, unless the person is licensed or exempt from licensure under this division or is an agent of a person licensed or exempt from licensure under this division" (California Financial Code section 2030). Licensed, exempt, or the agent of someone who is.
The Agent-of-Payee Exemption Is Written for Your Supplier's Agent, Not Yours
A different agent test carries the exemption most payment intermediaries rely on. The statute exempts "A transaction in which the recipient of the money or other monetary value is an agent of the payee pursuant to a preexisting written contract and delivery of the money or other monetary value to the agent satisfies the payor's obligation to the payee", and it defines "payee" as "the provider of goods or services, who is owed payment of money or other monetary value from the payor for the goods or services" and "payor" as "the recipient of goods or services, who owes payment of money or monetary value to the payee for the goods or services" (California Financial Code section 2010). The exemption is built around an agent appointed by your supplier. An AP outsourcing provider is appointed by you.
That distinction is more than a licensing footnote, and it is the part worth carrying into the contract. The exemption exists because delivery to the payee's agent settles what the payor owes. Where the intermediary is your agent instead, handing it the money does not necessarily discharge what you owe your supplier, so a provider that receives funds and fails to remit them can leave you owing the invoice twice. Whoever carries that loss should be named in the agreement rather than assumed.
Payroll Got a Carve-Out Written for the Payer's Side
The same section makes the contrast sharper. California wrote an exemption for "A person that delivers wages or salaries on behalf of employers to employees" that also covers a person that "transmits other funds on behalf of an employer in connection with transactions related to employees" (California Financial Code section 2010). Even that carve-out is scoped rather than blanket, because the same subdivision pulls the person back under the division to the extent it "offers money transmission services or provides stored value cards directly to individual customers". Supplier payments have no matching line written for the buyer's side at all. Wording differs across states, which is exactly why the question is asked state by state rather than answered once.
Ask which states the provider holds a money transmission license in and under which legal entity name, then verify each one with that state's regulator instead of the provider's compliance deck. The receivables side of the ledger has its own version of this classification problem, driven by federal debt collection law rather than money transmission, in comparing accounts receivable outsourcing companies.
How an Accounts Payable Outsourcing Company Gets Paid
Every pricing model in AP is defensible on its own terms, and each one aims the provider at something different. Read the model as a statement about what the provider is rewarded for.
Per invoice. It rewards throughput, so ask what happens to an invoice that cannot be processed cleanly, and ask which of supplier onboarding, re-keying after a coding change and month-end queries sits outside the unit price. Cost per invoice as a measurement, and what belongs in the numerator, is worked out in what an accounts payable outsourcing case study has to report.
Per exception or per touch. Priced on the invoices that need a human decision. The incentive runs backwards: revenue rises when more invoices fail. Ask who classifies an invoice as an exception, whether that classification is auditable, and whether exception fees are capped as a share of the base.
Per seat. You buy hours, so volume swings stay yours and the provider is neutral on how invoices behave.
Percentage of spend or of savings identified. Revenue scales with the money moving through, which is fine when the job really is recovery and poor when the job is routine administration that has to happen either way. Get the definition of a saving in writing before the first invoice, because a saving found once is often billed for a year.
The Card Rebate Is a Second Revenue Line With a Direction
A virtual card is a card account number generated for a single payment or a single supplier, with its own limit and expiry, used in place of a bank transfer. Card programs can pay a rebate, and the shape of one is visible in public because the federal government publishes the terms of its own program.
The General Services Administration describes the mechanism plainly for its own agencies: they "have the opportunity to earn refunds based on the dollar volume of transactions and the speed of payment" (GSA SmartPay purchase training).
Its refunds page states the calculation the same way, noting that "Minimum refunds are a single rate that considers both volume of spend and speed of pay", and that refunds are "a monetary payment provided by the contractor bank to agencies/organizations" (GSA SmartPay, refunds). In SmartPay the money comes back to the organization doing the buying, which is why the commercial version of the question is whose program your payables run on, and who therefore earns on your spend.
Read the direction of that incentive in a commercial setting. A rebate that scales with volume of spend and speed of pay rewards moving more of your payables onto the card and paying sooner. Faster payment you may well want. More card spend is a decision about your suppliers, because a supplier accepting a card generally pays a fee to accept it, and some will price that back to you or decline the method outright. A provider earning the rebate has a commercial interest in how your suppliers get paid, not only in how quickly.
So ask who receives the rebate, at what rate, whether it is disclosed on your invoice or netted against your fee, who decides that a supplier moves to card, and what happens to a supplier that refuses. A provider that keeps the rebate can quote a headline fee below its own cost of delivery, which makes the fee comparison meaningless until the second revenue line is on the table.
What the Agreement Has to Name About Payment
Six things, and a provider that moves money should be able to point at the clause for each one without a call to its legal team.
- The account the money leaves from. Name the bank account and the entity that owns it. If it is yours, the agreement is describing instruction rights. If it is theirs, it is describing custody.
- Whether funds ever rest anywhere the provider controls. Ask whose name is on that account and whether client funds are pooled. A pooled account is not automatically wrong, and it changes what happens if the provider fails.
- Who bears the loss when funds are received and not remitted. This is where the money transmission question stops being legal theory and becomes a commercial term, and it is the clause most often missing.
- Which legal entity performs the payment step. The entity on the sales agreement and the entity that initiates payments are often not the same company, and only one of them holds any registration or license.
- What the provider may change without written instruction. Payment method, payment timing, and supplier bank details each need their own answer, and supplier bank details should never be one of them.
- What happens to in-flight payments at termination. Payments scheduled but not yet sent are the messiest part of any exit, and the time to settle their treatment is at signing.
Where payment release sits, who may edit the supplier record, and the call-back control on a bank detail change are separate controls that stay inside the client firm, set out in what an accounts payable outsourcing case study has to report. The reports a provider offers about its own controls answer a narrower question than most buyers assume, which is the distinction drawn in SOC 1 versus SOC 2.
Six Questions That Sort Two Shortlisted Providers
Feature grids converge, because every provider can claim every feature. These six do not converge, because a specific answer and an evasive one sound nothing alike.
| Ask this | What a real answer contains |
|---|---|
| Do our funds ever sit in an account you control? | The bank, the account owner's legal name, and whether client funds are pooled. |
| Which of your legal entities initiates the payment? | One entity name, not a brand or a group. |
| Are you registered with FinCEN as a money services business, and which states license you? | A yes or a no with the registering entity, or the principal whose registration the payment runs under, plus a state list you can go and check. |
| How are you paid besides our fee? | Every revenue line, including card rebates, and who keeps each one. |
| Who decides that a supplier moves to card payment? | A named approver inside our firm, or a written rule we set. |
| If a payment reaches the wrong account, whose money is it? | A clause number in the draft agreement. |
Give both finalists the same small block of your real payables, with your own coding rules, before anything about payment is settled.
When No Provider Should Be Near the Payment
Outsourcing the record work and outsourcing the disbursement are separate decisions, and the second one is easy to make by accident.
Keep payment inside when nobody in your firm can currently name who approves what above which amount. Adding a party to an approval chain that is not written down converts a documentation problem into a fraud exposure.
For a firm whose problem is clerical volume, the useful default is a provider that prepares and never pays. It captures the keying, coding and matching, which is where the hours sit, it is the cheapest arrangement to supervise, and it is the easiest to replace when the relationship ends.
Start With the Funding Path, Not the Feature Grid
Draw your own payment path before you talk to anyone: where an invoice arrives, who codes it, who approves it, which account it leaves from, and who is allowed to instruct that account today. Then decide which of the five models you are shopping for, and treat any provider that cannot say plainly which one it is as an answer in itself.
Firms meet this twice, once as the buyer for their own payables and once as the provider, inside a client accounting services practice, where a client can put the same questions to you.
Accountably places trained offshore accountants and tax preparers inside US CPA and EA firms, ramped on your software and SOPs in about 3 to 4 weeks. Since 2022 that is 20+ US firms and 30+ placements. Don't trust us. Test us. Run the Free 40-Hour Proof Pilot on a block of your own payables work and grade the output yourself. If a placement is not the right fit in the first 30 days, we replace them free.