ExpenseIn vs Zoho Expense: buy for the people making claims

Compare the editions that can do the job

Zoho’s UK page lists SSO in Standard, more advanced approval/customisation in Premium and separate implementation/support offerings. Its plan cards and FAQ disagree on the minimum user count. Obtain the applicable minimum in writing; this guide does not choose one number and present it as settled.

Why start with Zoho? · When ExpenseIn fits · Compare three months of activity

Compare expense claims while keeping your accounting system

Assume one UK entity, 100 people, around 20 claimants in an ordinary month and an accounting system that stays. Employees need to submit and correct claims; Finance needs to approve them, arrange payment and record the expense.

Start with claim submission, approval, reimbursement and accounting. Add corporate cards, travel booking or invoice approval only if you also need to replace those services.

Zoho: an approver and a claimant need not be the same billable unit

Zoho’s UK pricing-model guide distinguishes active-user from all-user billing. On the active model, receipt scanning, mileage, real-time card activity or report creation can trigger a charge; an approval-only administrator does not count unless they perform a qualifying activity.

Under all-user billing, accounts—including approvers—count. Ask which model is in the proposal rather than applying one definition to the other.

Our view: request an active-user quote for the 20-claimant month. But “only 20 submitted” may understate activity if other people scanned receipts or created reports. Request the counting rule and usage evidence.

ExpenseIn: do not compare against the old plan names

The current ExpenseIn plans page lists Core, Advanced and Complete. Core includes policies and approvals; Advanced adds SSO, multi-entity, custom fields and project coding. Complete adds REST API and file delivery among its extras.

An older public brochure describes Business and Enterprise and activity-based billing. Treat that as historical packaging, not proof of the terms offered today. We did not establish a current public numerical quote on the plans page.

Our view: include ExpenseIn when the finance team wants to inspect the policy and approval workflow closely. If SSO is mandatory, start the quote at the tier that includes it. If the integration needs API access, ask whether Complete is necessary for that exact connection.

Test a rejected claim and an absent approver

Give both suppliers the same fictional case. An employee splits a purchase across two projects, attaches the wrong receipt, corrects it after rejection and resubmits while the normal approver is away.

Follow the whole journey: employee correction, permitted substitute approval, reimbursement instruction and the accounting record. Inspect which information survives the correction and whether the employee can understand the status.

This is a proposed demonstration, not a report of product testing. Check that the corrected receipt, project allocation and approval history remain attached to the claim. If a promised workflow needs a higher plan or paid setup, price it now.

Ask for three months, not a generic per-user rate

Provide three fictional activity profiles: an ordinary month with 20 claimants, a travel-heavy month with 45, and a quiet month with five. Include the actual number of approval-only and finance users separately.

Have each supplier calculate all three bills under its proposed terms, including any minimum, scanner allowance, connector, support and implementation costs. Ask what happens when someone scans a receipt this month but submits next month.

Do not compare Zoho’s all-user headline with an assumed ExpenseIn active-user quote. Equally, do not assume the smaller activity count makes Zoho cheaper before the commercial model is confirmed. The comparison needs two real offers.

Our starting choice—and what would change it

We would begin with Zoho Expense if a straightforward policy and a clearly priced active-user offer meet the brief. Keep ExpenseIn in the final two if the trial shows less work correcting claims, covering absent approvers or preparing payments.

Use the quoted edition for the claim exercise and have Finance reproduce the bill. Keep the incumbent if it already handles those tasks reliably and switching would not justify the migration work.

Before selecting either, run the separate approval-versus-payment test. Agree who confirms payment and updates the claim when payroll reimburses it.

Questions buyers ask