Fieldguide review

Fieldguide is an AI agent platform for accounting firms and audit and advisory teams. Its agents are designed to support engagements from planning through sign-off, while practitioners review and direct their work. That distinction matters: the product is positioned as support for professional judgment, not as an audit that runs without staff oversight.

The workflow spans several jobs. Field Planner assembles evidence-backed engagement plans for review before fieldwork. Field Auditor handles testing and evidence verification; Field Reviewer checks work for completeness and support, then flags open items and exceptions. Field Financials drafts statements and ties numbers to engagement data. Field Orchestrator provides a conversational way to direct work across the engagement, and a client portal brings requests, evidence and status together.

That makes Fieldguide broader than a single-purpose evidence-request tool. Whether that breadth saves time depends on how well its agents fit a firm’s actual engagement work and rollout capacity.

The clearest strength is the end-to-end scope. Fieldguide’s feature set covers planning, testing, review and financial statement drafting, rather than stopping at evidence collection. For firms trying to coordinate work across those stages, having requests, evidence and status in a shared client portal may reduce the need to track those items in separate places. The product materials also describe practitioners reviewing and directing the agents, keeping human sign-off in the workflow.

The individual agents have distinct jobs, which gives firms something concrete to evaluate in a demo: whether Field Planner produces usable plans, whether Field Auditor’s testing and evidence checks match the engagement, and whether Field Reviewer surfaces issues staff would otherwise have to find manually. Field Financials is aimed at drafting statements tied to engagement data, while Field Orchestrator is meant to direct the process through a conversational interface.

That scope could suit teams handling varied audit and advisory work better than a tool focused on one task. But the feature list is not proof of productivity gains. In one Reddit discussion, an accounting firm considering Fieldguide alongside other platforms questioned whether demo gains carry over to live engagements. That is a sensible point to test against your own workflows.

Price is hard to evaluate before a sales conversation. Fieldguide does not publish a starting price, plan table, billing terms or plan caps in the available pricing information; pricing is provided through custom sales quotes. The available information also does not establish whether there is a free trial. A Reddit commenter called Fieldguide the most expensive option they considered, but that is one user’s report, not a verified price comparison.

Rollout risk deserves equal attention. In Reddit discussions, users report difficult implementation, limited help with templates, client access problems and slow evidence loading. One commenter said the product could not handle complex SOC engagements. These are individual accounts, not a measured failure rate, but they are specific concerns to raise with the vendor and reference customers.

Switching also means training and reworking established processes. Reddit commenters warn that adoption can take more time than expected, especially for firms already efficient in CaseWare. Before committing, ask for a quote that spells out pricing and limits, and validate implementation support, client access, evidence performance and your most complex engagement type.

Fieldguide does not publish a starting price, plan prices, or add-on rates in the available pricing information. The checked pricing record lists custom sales quotes, with billing terms not published, so there is no reliable tier comparison or way to calculate total cost before talking to sales. It lists no free plan; a free-trial term is not published. We also cannot verify a seat minimum, implementation fee, or annual commitment—do not assume those are included or absent.

The product spans Field Planner, Field Auditor, Field Reviewer, Field Financials and Field Orchestrator, plus a client portal. The available material does not say whether those modules are bundled, priced separately, or gated by plan. There are no published tier prices, so no documented jump between tiers, and no listed add-ons to compare. Ask for a quote that breaks out modules, users, implementation, support, data retention and renewal terms. For firms with tight software budgets, that opacity is a real buying constraint.

Fieldguide covers engagement work from planning through sign-off, so switching may involve more than moving client files: firms may need to map existing workflows, evidence requests, review steps and templates to the platform. The published information does not document migration services, import formats, export options or how long a move takes. Treat data portability as an open question, not an assumed feature.

Before signing, ask for a sample export and written terms for retrieving engagement files, evidence, workpapers and financial statement drafts if you leave. Confirm what happens to client-portal records and whether exports remain usable outside Fieldguide. The review brief flags negative rollout reports on Reddit, but provides no post details or specifics; we cannot say what went wrong or how common those reports are. Ask the vendor for references from firms with a similar workflow and clarify onboarding scope, support and exit assistance. Teams satisfied with optimized existing processes have less reason to absorb that uncertainty.