Keeper (Now Double) vs. LedgerSync: Bookkeeping Workflows
Compare Keeper, now Double, with LedgerSync for month-end close, bank evidence, client questions, reconciliation, and bookkeeping workflow design.
Keeper is now Double. This article retains its original URL so existing links continue to work, but uses the current name below.
Double and LedgerSync overlap around bookkeeping operations without solving exactly the same problem. The useful question is whether your close is delayed by missing bank evidence, inconsistent review, unresolved client questions, or all three.
Double: organizing the close and review
Double’s current platform brings together month-end close, transaction review, client communication, and related bookkeeping workflows. Its product scope also includes AI-assisted work, reporting, and document collection.
That makes it a candidate when a firm needs a more consistent way to manage preparation and review across clients. Evaluate the specific accounting-system connection and subscription being offered; a product-level integration listing is not a guarantee that every field or workflow is supported.
LedgerSync: collecting bank evidence and moving data
LedgerSync describes fetching transactions, bank statements, and check images, with categorization and accounting-system synchronization. Its current offering extends beyond a simple statement-download utility.
For a firm repeatedly chasing original statements or check details, the important test is your actual bank coverage. Institution support does not necessarily mean every account type, historical period, and document image is available.
Where the tools differ operationally
| Your bottleneck | What to demonstrate |
|---|---|
| Inconsistent close procedures | Templates, ownership, review status, and exception follow-up in Double |
| Missing statements or check images | Retrieval for representative client banks in LedgerSync |
| Unanswered transaction questions | Who receives a request, where the answer lands, and who clears it |
| Duplicate or conflicting data | Whether existing feeds, imports, and the new connection overlap |
| Review visibility | How the firm proves a period is complete, not merely synchronized |
Some firms may evaluate both. That only helps if their responsibilities are distinct. Two systems assigning the same question or importing the same transaction can increase work.
Design the close before enabling automation
Start with a documented sequence: collect source evidence, reconcile, resolve questions, review adjustments, approve reports, and close the period. Give each step an owner and define what “complete” means.
For bank retrieval, test an expired connection, an unavailable statement, and a check image that cannot be fetched. Staff need an exception queue and a fallback request, not an assumption that silence means success.
For close management, test a reopened period and a client response received after review. Verify that the right person sees the change and that the final workpaper remains traceable.
Price the complete workflow
Obtain current quotes for the clients, connections, users, storage, and features you need. Include cleanup, training, and the time spent maintaining connections. Historical per-client prices should not substitute for an actual proposal.
Before uploading client information, review permissions, retention, export options, and vendor security evidence. Keep a usable record outside any system you may later replace, in accordance with the firm’s retention policy.
How Genwise helps
Genwise connects People, Processes, and Technology: consistent close templates, clear review responsibilities, practical configuration, team adoption, and ongoing refinement. The goal is fewer unresolved handoffs, not simply another dashboard.
Book Your Efficiency Assessment to identify whether your next improvement belongs in bank-data collection, the close workflow, or both.