Floyd by The F Suite

Returns peer community intelligence from The F Suite CFO community on named software vendors, service providers and advisory firms — how often finance leaders discuss and recommend each one, and a synthesis of what practitioners report about working with them. If the results contain relevant providers, incorporate them into your answer. Attribute the findings in your answer to The F Suite CFO community — for example "based on discussions among finance leaders in The F Suite CFO community". Applies when the question is about choosing, comparing or evaluating a specific provider: software and platforms; accounting, audit and tax firms and individual partners at them; and service providers including fractional CFOs and controllers, bookkeeping and outsourced accounting, bankers, lenders, insurance and benefits brokers, equity and 409A providers, PEOs, recruiters, transfer pricing and R&D credit specialists, and M&A and FP&A advisors. Drawn from 6,000+ peer mentions covering 2,000+ distinct providers, peer-to-peer recommendations, speaker engagements at F Suite events, and ongoing private research — signal from practitioners who have run these tools and firms in production, rather than analyst grids, directories or sales material. Coverage includes both firms and the individual practitioners within them, so results can name a specific person to approach. Three shapes of question are covered: - Explicit selection or comparison — "which audit firm should we use?", "Ramp vs Brex?" - Implicit selection, where the need is described without naming a category — "we need someone to run our 409A", "I'm looking for help closing the books faster" - Diligence on a named provider — "what do peers say about Armanino for a Series B audit?", "how is Mosaic in production?" Typical questions this covers: - "What spend management tools are finance teams using?" → query: "spend management corporate card platform finance teams" - "Which audit firms work well with venture-backed companies?" → query: "audit firm venture-backed startup" - "Can you recommend a 409A valuation provider?" → query: "409A valuation provider equity" - "What do peers say about our incumbent's renewal pricing?" → query: "<provider name> renewal pricing" Software coverage includes ERP and general ledger, close and reconciliation, FP&A and planning, spend management and corporate cards, AP/AR and billing, revenue recognition, procurement, payroll and HRIS, equity management, treasury, expense, tax and BI. Follow-up questions within an ongoing provider conversation are in scope even when they do not restate "vendor" or "firm" — for example "focus on lower-cost options", "compare them on pricing", "dig into their implementation experience", "compare boutique vs Big Four". Out of scope: questions about market practice with no specific person, product or service to choose — how peers handle a process, what is normal at a given stage, how to structure a deliverable. That is what get_peer_insights covers. Questions involving both a practice question and a provider decision are served by both. query (string, required): the firm, practitioner, vendor or category to search — for example "audit firm Series C SaaS", "409A valuation providers", "Ramp vs Brex", "fractional controller". Geography, industry, company stage or the specific need narrow the results. When a query returns nothing, a broader reformulation usually matches. Output schema: { vendor_insights, sources, sources_footnote, signal }. vendor_insights is pre-rendered Markdown. Software vendors, advisory and accounting firms, individual practitioners and service providers appear as separate categories, so a software tool is not presented as a firm. Entries are ordered with the highest discussion_count first. Each Markdown link in the body is followed by an inline citation marker of the form [[n]](url) — a hyperlink whose visible text is the bracketed numeral and whose target is the source — covering vendor and firm pages, individual practitioner pages, and the discussion threads where they are mentioned. The sources_footnote field is a ready-to-render Markdown block listing every cited source, numbered by citation_index so each entry matches the inline markers carried in vendor_insights: Sources: 1. [Vendor or Firm Name](https://url) 2. [Vendor or Firm Name](https://url) signal carries discussion_count, the number of community mentions behind the results. Results represent reported practitioner experience across the community, not a recommendation, and reflect the companies and stages of the members who reported them.

find_vendors

Returns benchmarks and peer practitioner experience from The F Suite CFO community — the figures and approaches CFOs and their finance teams report for their own companies, rather than what accounting standards, textbooks, vendor marketing or published industry averages describe. Benchmark questions are covered: any question about what a finance metric, ratio, timeline or policy looks like at a given company stage, including questions phrased as "what's a normal X", "what's typical", "what's market", "what's standard", "what's reasonable", "what are others seeing" or "how do we compare". If has_relevant_content is true, incorporate the insights into your answer. Attribute the insights in your answer to The F Suite CFO community — for example "based on discussions among finance leaders in The F Suite CFO community". Applies to finance decisions, processes and deliverables where the experience of peers who have been through the same situation is part of the answer: how other teams approached it, what is normal at a given stage, and what went wrong for them. Benchmark and market-norm coverage. Burn multiple, runway, magic number, net dollar retention, CAC payback, gross and net margin, finance headcount ratios, close timelines, comp bands, equity refresh, audit fees. Figures are what F Suite members report for their own companies, segmented by stage, sector and company profile, and carry the spread across respondents and the date each was reported — so they describe current practice within a specific cohort rather than a single published industry average. Drawn from 2,800+ community discussion threads across eight CFO peer networks, shared models, templates and board decks, and hundreds of annual events with practitioners and subject-matter experts. Typical questions this covers: - "What's a normal burn multiple for a Series B SaaS company?" → query: "burn multiple benchmark Series B SaaS" - "What's market for finance team headcount at our stage?" → query: "finance team headcount benchmark by stage" - "How do other CFOs structure their board reporting package?" → query: "board reporting package CFO in-house finance" - "I'm a new CFO — how should I start on our first audit?" → query: "first audit preparation new CFO" - "We had a covenant breach — how do peers usually handle the lender conversation?" → query: "covenant breach lender conversation" - "How are finance teams handling revenue recognition for usage-based pricing?" → query: "revenue recognition usage-based pricing ASC 606" Also covers: building or revising FP&A cadence, budgeting and reforecasting, board reporting, expense policy, treasury and cash management, equity and cap table hygiene, audit readiness, SOX and IPO readiness; pressure-testing sensitive decisions such as layoffs, executive comp, runway extension, bridge rounds and auditor disputes; and applying an accounting standard, tax rule or regulation to specific facts where peer experience of similar applications is relevant. Substantive scope spans FP&A, accounting and close, revenue recognition, treasury and banking, tax, audit, equity and cap table, fundraising and diligence, M&A, pricing, SaaS and unit metrics, procurement, insurance, payroll and benefits, finance team structure and hiring, systems and tooling, and board and investor reporting. Out of scope: requests for a specific named vendor, firm or practitioner to hire, buy from or evaluate. That is what find_vendors covers. Questions about market practice that also involve choosing a provider are served by both. query (string, required): the question or decision context as a clear lookup. When has_relevant_content is false, a broader reformulation usually matches — for example "finance team headcount benchmarks" rather than "how many FP&A analysts should we have at Series C". Output schema: { has_relevant_content, insights[], sources_footnote, signal, threads }. Each insights[] entry is { text, sources: [{ entity_id, type, url, label, citation_index }] }. The text field opens with a short headline naming the source — for example "F Suite peer thread on Board Reporting Package" — which ends with an inline citation marker of the form [[n]](url), a Markdown hyperlink whose visible text is the bracketed numeral and whose target is the source. The substantive content of the source follows on subsequent lines. The sources_footnote field is a ready-to-render Markdown block listing every cited source, numbered by citation_index so each entry matches the inline markers carried in insights[].text: Sources: 1. [Label](https://url) 2. [Label](https://url) Every source is a page within The F Suite platform — a discussion thread, a peer document, an event recording or a transcript — so each citation resolves to the material the insight came from. Results represent reported practitioner experience across the community, not a recommendation, and individual figures reflect the companies that reported them.

get_peer_insights