Peer Benchmarking Report
CROSSOVER RESEARCH
CFO AI Adoption Study
Peer Benchmarking Summary
How finance leaders across industries are approaching AI adoption — where they are today, where they're headed, and what's holding them back.
Respondents: 129 Senior Finance Leaders Seniority: CFO, VP of Finance, CAO & equivalents Industries: 10+ verticals represented Fielded: January – February 2026 Conducted by: Crossover Research LLC

What This Report Is

Thank you for participating in Crossover Research's CFO AI Adoption Study. This summary reflects the aggregated, anonymized responses of 129 senior finance leaders across industries. No individual responses are identified. Our goal is to give you a candid picture of where your peers stand — on AI adoption, budget priorities, concerns, and expectations — so you can benchmark your own organization's position.

79% are already piloting or using AI in production — adoption is mainstream, not experimental
67% have less than 5% of finance work automated today, but 37% expect 25%+ automation within 3 years
Accuracy & reliability ranks #1 in vendor evaluation criteria, averaging 8.9 out of 10
71% cite inaccuracy as their biggest AI concern — the market wants proof, not demos
93% would shift some labor budget to AI if tools deliver on their promises
57% face moderate to strong pressure from boards or leadership to accelerate AI adoption
Section 01
Who Responded
Respondent profile — roles, company sizes, and industries represented
129
Total Respondents
Senior finance leaders across 10+ industries; all screened for decision authority
61%
Chief Financial Officers
Remaining 39% are VPs and Directors of Finance, FP&A, Accounting, and Treasury
72%
Mid-Market Companies
Majority are 100–999 employee organizations; 23% are enterprise (1,000+)
10+
Industries Covered
Healthcare, manufacturing, B2B SaaS, professional services, financial services and more
Role Breakdown
CFO61%
VP of Finance21%
VP of FP&A / SVP6%
Director of Finance5%
CAO / VP Accounting4%
Other Senior Finance3%
Company Size (FTEs)
Under 1005%
100–49942%
500–99916%
1,000–2,49915%
2,500–4,9999%
5,000+14%
Primary Industry
Healthcare / Life Sciences22%
Manufacturing / Industrials18%
B2B SaaS / Technology14%
Professional Services14%
Consumer / Hospitality10%
Financial Services / FinTech8%
Other verticals14%
Section 02
AI Adoption Today
Current production use, which functions have gone live, and how far automation has progressed

AI adoption in finance is no longer an early-adopter phenomenon. 79% of respondents are either already running AI in production or actively piloting tools today — yet the actual percentage of finance work automated remains very low. The gap between intention and execution is wide, and it's driven by a consistent set of obstacles explored in Section 4.

79%
of finance leaders are already using or actively evaluating AI tools — only 1 in 5 respondents has no concrete AI plans in place today.
Current AI Adoption Status
Already in Production
17%
Piloting / Evaluating
34%
Planning (Next 12 Mo.)
28%
No Concrete Plans
21%
Takeaway
The majority are in the evaluation or pilot phase — meaning most organizations are 1–2 cycles away from production decisions. Early movers have an advantage in learning curve.
Finance Functions Using AI in Production
FP&A Forecasting
28%
AP Processing
23%
Expense Coding
16%
AR / Collections
20%
Audit / Compliance
10%
None yet
49%
Current vs. Expected Automation — % of Finance Work Automated by AI
TODAY (Current State)
<5%
67%
5–10%
22%
11–25%
10%
25%+
2%
IN 3 YEARS (Expected)
<5%
2%
5–10%
15%
11–25%
47%
25%+
37%
The Expectation Gap
67% of finance orgs have less than 5% of work automated today, but 47% expect to reach 11–25% within three years — a dramatic ramp that will depend heavily on vendors delivering on production-grade accuracy and integration.
Section 03
Strategy & Approach
How respondents plan to adopt AI — build vs. buy, autonomous vs. assistive, and budget allocation

CFOs are overwhelmingly choosing to buy — not build — and to layer AI on top of existing systems rather than replace them. The dominant philosophy is cautious incrementalism: add AI capabilities through point solutions, prove ROI in narrow use cases, then expand.

How Will You Adopt AI?
Layer AI on existing systems
77%
Replace core systems with AI-native
15%
Build internally
8%
Build vs. Buy Orientation
Buy Only
36%
Primarily Buy
33%
Hybrid (Buy + Build)
27%
Primarily/Only Build
5%
Autonomous vs. Assistive AI Preference
Task-dependent — mix of both
35%
Assistive only (human approval)
32%
Not comfortable with autonomous yet
17%
Prefer autonomous for routine work
16%
General LLMs vs. Purpose-Built Finance AI
Too early to tell
33%
LLMs for ad-hoc, purpose-built for core
32%
Purpose-built essential — LLMs lack rigor
16%
Will use both
16%
LLMs can handle most needs
3%
AI Budget: Dedicated Allocation Today
0% — No dedicated AI spend
36%
1–5% allocated to AI
35%
6–15% allocated to AI
21%
16–25% allocated to AI
9%
AI Budget: Net New vs. Reallocation
Mostly Net New
29%
Entirely Net New
19%
Mostly Reallocated
18%
No AI Budget Yet
18%
Roughly 50/50
13%
Entirely Reallocated
4%
On Pilot-to-Production Conversion
49% of respondents who run pilots say either none or fewer than 25% of AI pilots have successfully made it into production. This is a significant credibility gap for vendors — and a signal that finance buyers need production references, not proof-of-concepts, to justify budget commitments.
Section 04
Barriers & Concerns
What is holding back adoption — primary obstacles and AI-specific anxieties

Despite widespread interest, adoption is slowing against a consistent set of barriers. The most common theme across open-ended responses: AI tools look impressive in demos but fall short in production environments where accuracy, auditability, and integration with existing systems are non-negotiable.

Biggest Concerns About Adopting AI (Select all that apply)
Inaccuracy of Model/Agent
71%
Cost
44%
Can't Justify ROI
36%
General Functionality
31%
Feature Depth
23%
Job Displacement
7%
Primary Barrier Slowing Adoption
Unclear ROI / Vendor Immaturity
21%
Integration Complexity
16%
Skills Gap on Finance Team
16%
Data Quality / Availability
15%
Budget Constraints
12%
Auditability / Explainability
7%
Security & Compliance
7%
Data Readiness for AI
Fair — siloed, inconsistent quality
43%
Good — mostly clean, some gaps
42%
Poor — significant quality issues
8%
Excellent — clean, centralized
6%
Data Readiness Reality
85% of respondents rate their data quality as only "fair" or below — meaning most organizations will need data remediation work before AI tools can be deployed effectively in production environments.
Section 05
Buying Signals & Vendor Evaluation
What CFOs prioritize when evaluating tools, what capabilities unlock budget, and willingness to pay

CFOs have a clear hierarchy when it comes to evaluating AI and finance technology vendors. Accuracy tops everything — by a significant margin. Vendors who lead with flashy features over provable accuracy and seamless integration are consistently losing deals. Price premiums are tolerated, but only when tied directly to measurable value.

Vendor Evaluation Criteria — Average Importance Score (1–10)
Criterion Avg Score Relative Weight
Accuracy & Reliability of Outputs 8.9 / 10
Total Cost of Ownership 8.3 / 10
Integration Capabilities with Existing Stack 8.0 / 10
Implementation Speed & Complexity 7.7 / 10
Vendor Support Quality & Responsiveness 7.7 / 10
Security Certifications & Compliance (SOC 2, etc.) 7.3 / 10
Reference Customers in Similar Industries 7.0 / 10
Product Roadmap & Innovation Pace 6.8 / 10
AI Maturity of the Vendor 6.7 / 10
AI Capabilities That Would Unlock Budget (Select up to 2)
Invoice processing, 99%+ accuracy
67%
Automated month-end reconciliations
53%
Cash flow forecasting w/ variance
43%
Predictive revenue forecasting
33%
Real-time anomaly / fraud detection
32%
Autonomous journal entry creation
31%
Natural language financial reporting
20%
Willingness to Pay Premium for AI-Enabled Finance Software
1–15% more
61%
15–30% more
28%
30–50% more
4%
50%+ more
2%
No premium
5%
Key Takeaway
95% of respondents are willing to pay some premium for AI-enabled software. Most are comfortable with 1–15%, but 34% will go 15% or more when ROI is demonstrable.
How Can a New AI Product Differentiate? (Select all that apply)
Higher automation accuracy rates
63%
Better integrations
48%
Fewer / simpler workflows
46%
Faster implementation
41%
Focused killer feature
37%
Better AI model quality
37%
All-in-one platform
27%
More robust feature set
18%
Section 06
3-Year Outlook
Budget expectations, headcount implications, board pressure, and the AI system-of-record question

Looking ahead, CFOs anticipate meaningful budget expansion and workforce shifts tied to AI adoption. Board and executive pressure is accelerating timelines, and the majority believe AI could eventually operate as a system of record — a view with significant implications for the software platforms that finance orgs rely on today.

72%
Expect Finance Tech Budget to Grow
Moderate (10–30%) or significant (30%+) budget increases expected over next 2–3 years
57%
Face Board or Executive AI Pressure
Moderate to strong mandates from boards, investors, or executive leadership to accelerate AI adoption
59%
Expect to Reduce Finance Headcount
If AI tools deliver on their promises; 93% would shift some labor budget to AI tooling
68%
Believe AI Can Become a System of Record
Over time, if AI expands functionality and builds sufficient user trust and audit trails
When Do You Expect AI in Production?
Already in production
31%
Next 12 months
30%
Next 2–3 years
33%
4–5 years or more
5%
Not adopting AI
1%
What Is Driving AI Pressure?
Cost Reduction Mandates
65%
Competitive Dynamics
52%
Investor / Board Expectations
40%
Peer Benchmarking
30%
Operational Efficiency Goals
28%
93%
of respondents said they would shift some labor budget to AI tools if those tools deliver on their promises. The question is no longer whether to invest — it's which vendors can prove production-grade results to justify the reallocation.
Section 07
Voices from the Field
Selected verbatim responses — anonymized and grouped by theme

The following quotes represent a cross-section of open-ended responses from survey participants. They have been lightly edited for grammar and anonymized by design. They reflect no single industry or company size.

All responses anonymized. Quotes represent individual respondent perspectives, not aggregate findings.
On Manual Pain Points in Finance Today
“Monthly bank and account reconciliations, along with creating forecasts and updating financial reports, consume the most time.”
VP Finance — Mid-Market
“Cash management and treasury functions are our most manual processes today. Significant opportunities exist for automation.”
CFO — Healthcare
“Managing the month-end close task list and tracking task completion and challenges are the most time-intensive activities.”
Director of Finance — Manufacturing
“Collections and cash applications are highly manual because the interface with the bank and credit card merchant is poor, leading to numerous errors requiring manual intervention.”
CFO — Consumer Services
On AI Proof Points Needed Before Committing
“Reference customers are usually my most helpful conversations. If you can prove the concept elsewhere, I believe we can do the same.”
CFO — B2B SaaS
“Hard ROI metrics including cost savings and increased top-line, total cost of ownership, and reference customers would be key considerations.”
VP Finance — Professional Services
“Price, implementation cost and timeline, and know-how from the implementation team as assessed by both finance and IT would be important.”
CFO — Healthcare
“Evaluation of edge case handling, ROI in time and money, and positive customer feedback would be the key proof points.”
CFO — Manufacturing
On AI Disappointments
“Accuracy is not high enough for production use. We've evaluated several tools and none clear the bar we need for financial reporting.”
CFO — Financial Services
“Poor integration with existing systems. The demo looks great until you try to connect it to what we actually use.”
VP Finance — B2B SaaS
“Overpromised, underdelivered on ROI. We had high expectations and the productivity gains didn't materialize the way we projected.”
CFO — Professional Services
“Can't explain or audit the outputs. Finance requires auditability — a black box that produces numbers I can't defend to auditors is a non-starter.”
CFO — Healthcare
On What Is Driving AI Pressure
“Mainly cost reductions and the need to run an efficient company. At companies our size, resources are limited and every efficiency matters.”
CFO — Mid-Market
“We realize other organizations are ahead in implementing AI. Key leaders want us to move forward and not fall further behind.”
CFO — Healthcare System
“What industry leaders and competitors are doing, along with looking for cost reductions, is what drives our interest.”
VP Finance — Manufacturing
“It is mostly market hype paired with real cost pressure. AI adoption is encouraged with little understanding of the internal controls and data accuracy needs of accounting.”
CFO — Professional Services