What does Finrep do for SEC reporting teams?

Finrep provides purpose-built workflows for SEC reporting including roll-forward analysis, peer alignment benchmarking, comment letter risk detection, filing readiness checks, and AI-assisted disclosure drafting — all grounded in evidence and peer precedent.

How does Finrep help with 10-K and 10-Q drafting?

Finrep's Disclosure Drafting workflow drafts or refines 10-K and 10-Q sections using peer precedent, prior period language, and applicable ASC guidance as grounding sources. Every output is traceable to its source.

Can Finrep help respond to SEC comment letters?

Yes. Finrep's Comment Letter Response workflow drafts substantive, defensible responses to SEC staff comment letters by referencing peer company responses and applicable accounting guidance.

What workflows does Finrep offer for CFO and Controller teams?

Finrep offers Certification Readiness, Cross-Period Consistency, and Board Briefing workflows — covering pre-certification risk summaries, narrative consistency checks, and audit committee-ready disclosure summaries.

Does Finrep support ESG and sustainability reporting?

Yes. Finrep includes ESG Disclosure Benchmark and ESG Regulatory Monitoring workflows, supporting TCFD, SASB, and GRI framework alignment as well as SEC climate disclosure rule tracking.

Which teams in the CFO office does Finrep support?

Finrep supports SEC Reporting, Technical Accounting, Legal Counsel, Investor Relations, Disclosure Committee, CFO and Controller, Tax Team, and ESG Reporting functions.

What does the depth score measure?

Coverage breadth (number of topics addressed), narrative specificity, quantitative context, and forward-looking discussion relative to the peer median per subsection.

How are coverage gaps identified?

Topics peers discuss within a subsection that your draft does not address. Flagged at the topic level, not the subsection level, with peer count shown.

Is verbatim peer language always surfaced?

Only where the gap is material relative to the peer set. Minor depth differences do not generate peer language retrieval.

Does it flag Regulation S-K compliance gaps?

Yes. Coverage gaps that may represent S-K Item 303 compliance issues flagged separately from depth-only gaps.

Can I run it mid-cycle, not just at final review?

Yes. Run early to identify gaps while there is time to address them, then again before final committee review.

How many peers can I include?

Up to 15. Most recent filed period retrieved for each.

Investor Relations

MD&A Benchmark

An MD&A benchmark compares your Item 303 discussion against peers subsection by subsection: results of operations, liquidity and capital resources, critical accounting estimates, known trends and uncertainties. Finrep scores depth, flags coverage gaps where peers discuss a topic you do not, and surfaces verbatim peer language where the gap warrants it.

4 subsections

Results, liquidity, critical estimates, trends

Depth-scored

Against peer set per subsection

EDGAR-linked

Verbatim peer language where gaps warrant

See sample reports

Sample MD&A Benchmark Reports

See what a Finrep MD&A benchmark looks like. Download and review the full output.

Today's reality

MD&A Benchmark without Finrep

MD&A reviewed internally against prior period, not against current peer practice
Coverage gaps invisible unless someone reads every peer MD&A in full
Depth comparison subjective, no scoring against the peer set
Verbatim peer language assembled manually when gaps are identified

Investor Relations · Pre-Filing

Your MD&A is compared to peers every earnings cycle. You should compare it first.

Analysts, investors, and the SEC Staff read peer MD&A sections alongside yours. The results of operations discussion that your team considers complete may be two subsections thinner than the sector median. The known trends and uncertainties discussion that passed internal review may omit a topic five of your ten peers address.

Reading peer MD&A subsections, mapping coverage, and measuring depth within a close cycle requires time the calendar does not provide. So the benchmark does not happen, and the gaps persist filing after filing.

Without Finrep

Manual process

MD&A reviewed internally against prior period, not against current peer practice
Coverage gaps invisible unless someone reads every peer MD&A in full
Depth comparison subjective, no scoring against the peer set
Verbatim peer language assembled manually when gaps are identified

With Finrep

Automated workflow

Item 303 benchmarked subsection by subsection against the peer set
Coverage gaps flagged explicitly: where peers discuss a topic your draft does not
Depth scored per subsection relative to the peer median
Verbatim peer language surfaced for every gap that warrants strengthening

From your MD&A to subsection-level peer benchmark in four steps

Upload your filing or MD&A section

Drop your 10-K or 10-Q (or just Item 303). Finrep parses each subsection and maps topics within each.

Define your peer set

Select by ticker, SIC, GICS, or market cap. Finrep retrieves each peer's most recent Item 303 from EDGAR.

Review depth scores and coverage gaps

Each subsection shows your depth score against the peer median. Topics peers discuss that your draft omits flagged with verbatim peer language where the gap warrants it.

Strengthen and route

Address gaps while the draft is in progress. Export the benchmark for disclosure committee review.

What you get

Subsection-level MD&A benchmark with depth scores, coverage gaps, and peer language

Ask FinaEDGAR SearchPeer Benchmarking

Investor Relations

What MD&A Benchmark does at a glance

Team: Investor Relations
Filing phase: Pre-Filing
Output: Subsection-level MD&A benchmark with depth scores, coverage gaps, and peer language
Modules: Ask FinaEDGAR SearchPeer Benchmarking

What changes when MD&A depth is measured, not assumed

Four-subsection benchmark structure

Results of operations, liquidity and capital resources, critical accounting estimates, and known trends and uncertainties benchmarked separately. Each subsection scored on depth relative to the peer median. A filing can be above median on liquidity and below median on known trends within the same MD&A.

Topic-level coverage gap flagging

Within each subsection, topics peers discuss that your draft does not are flagged. Not a subsection-level flag: a topic-level flag. If six peers discuss foreign currency headwinds in results of operations and your draft does not mention FX, the gap is identified specifically.

Verbatim peer language for warranted gaps

For coverage gaps where the depth difference is material, verbatim peer language surfaced from EDGAR with source links. Shows the actual language peers use on the topic, not a summary. Legal and editorial review can then decide what to adopt.

Regulation S-K Item 303 alignment

Benchmark cross-referenced against Regulation S-K Item 303 requirements. Coverage gaps that also represent potential S-K compliance issues flagged separately from depth-only gaps.

Built for the people who sign off on whether MD&A is complete

SEC Reporting Lead

Subsection-by-subsection depth scores and coverage gaps before the filing routes. Verbatim peer language for every gap that warrants strengthening.

Disclosure Committee Member

Peer practice on every Item 303 subsection visible before sign-off. Every data point linked to an EDGAR source.

FAQ

Results of operations, liquidity and capital resources, critical accounting estimates, and known trends and uncertainties. Both annual (10-K) and quarterly (10-Q) formats.