Trullion alternative for lease abstraction: Trullion lease accounting software compared

Trullion is a New York headquartered accounting software company with research and development in Tel Aviv. It was founded in 2019 by Isaac Heller and Amir Boldo, and funding databases report roughly 33 million dollars raised across three rounds, including a 15 million dollar Series B in April 2023 led by StepStone Group. Treat the funding figures as third party reporting rather than a company disclosure.

The platform runs three product lines: lease accounting, revenue recognition, and audit workflow. The common thread is the close and the audit that follows it. Trullion markets itself at accounting teams, controllers, and both internal and external audit, and its lease product page leans hard on being able to produce, in its words, 100 percent auditable journal entries and disclosure reports with a source based audit trail that traces every number back to the contract it came from.

The lease module supports ASC 842, IFRS 16, FRS 102 and GASB 87. It accepts lease documents directly: the product page invites you to upload your PDF or Excel lease contracts with a single click, then uses OCR to pull names, dates, payment terms and other contract details out of them. That extraction is real, and it is the reason Trullion shows up in lease abstraction searches at all. It exists to populate the subledger.

That shape tells you who Trullion fits. A controller at a company with a few hundred leases, a real audit every year, and a genuine need for ASC 842 or GASB 87 schedules is close to the center of the target. A property manager who needs to know which twelve leases expire next year, and what the renewal notice windows are, is not.

These two products overlap less than the search results suggest. Trullion answers a controller asking how the portfolio posts and how the auditor will tie it out. Abstraction answers everyone else asking what the leases actually say. Plenty of companies need both, and abstraction is the step that comes first, because a subledger built on fields nobody checked is just a faster way to be wrong.

Trullion does not publish pricing. As of August 2026 the obvious pricing URL on its own domain returns a 404, there are no figures on the lease product page, and the page closes by telling you that for more on pricing you should reach out to the team. Every route ends at a demo booking. That is normal for this tier of software and it is not a criticism, but it does mean you cannot budget for Trullion without entering a sales cycle.

What you can reasonably expect is annual contracting, pricing that scales with lease count and users, and separate line items for implementation and data migration. Trullion's own guidance on choosing lease accounting software makes the same point: implementation services, integrations and data migration add to the subscription. If you see a specific dollar figure for Trullion on a review site or a competitor blog, treat it as an estimate somebody else made up, not a rate card.

We keep a running record of who in this market publishes a number and who does not, which is a short list: see the lease abstraction software pricing comparison for the vendor by vendor detail. Trullion joins the large majority that quote only.

It would be dishonest to pretend a lease abstraction tool replaces a lease accounting platform, so here is the fair version. If your driver is compliance, Trullion is doing something we do not do at all.

• The subledger itself. Trullion produces the amortization schedules, journal entries and disclosure tables. We produce the inputs those calculations consume.
• Audit workflow. Trullion puts the auditor on the same platform as the controller. That collaboration is a real product, and for a company with an external audit it removes a genuinely painful email cycle.
• Multi standard reporting. ASC 842 alongside IFRS 16, FRS 102 and GASB 87 matters if you file under more than one framework or you are a US public sector entity.
• Beyond leases. Revenue recognition sits on the same platform. If you were buying two systems, that consolidation has value.

If any of those four is the reason you are shopping, the honest answer is that you are looking at the right category and a per lease abstraction tool will not satisfy you. What we would still argue is that you should not let the accounting platform decide your abstraction quality, for the reason in the next section.

The mismatch shows up in the field set. An accounting platform extracts what the schedules need: commencement, term, payment stream, escalations, incentives, options that affect the lease term assessment. That is maybe twenty fields. A commercial lease abstract runs to well over a hundred, because the people using it need the assignment and subletting language, the exclusive use carve outs, the CAM cap mechanics, the estoppel obligations, the restoration clause and the notice addresses.

So the question to ask is not which product is better. It is what happens six months after go live, when leasing asks whether a tenant can sublet to a competitor and the answer is not in the accounting system because it was never a number.

• You are pre purchase. Diligence on an acquisition needs a full abstract in days, not an implementation.
• You already have an accounting system. If the subledger exists and is fine, you are buying data, not software. Abstract and export into it.
• Volume is lumpy. Two hundred leases this quarter and none next quarter fits per month abstraction badly and fits an annual enterprise contract worse.
• Non accounting users own the leases. Asset management, leasing and legal will not log into a controller's tool, and should not have to.
• You need the clauses, not just the numbers. This is the common one and it is the one accounting led abstraction handles worst.

If the ASC 842 inputs are what you are chasing, our ASC 842 implementation guide lists every field the standard actually needs and where each one hides in the document, and the journal entries walkthrough shows what happens to those fields downstream.

The pattern we see most often is not either or. It is abstraction first, accounting second. Run the portfolio through abstraction to get a verified field set with every value linked to its clause, review the exceptions, then load the accounting relevant subset into whichever subledger you have chosen, Trullion included. The export is a mapped file, so this is a load rather than a project.

The reason to sequence it that way is verification. Extraction accuracy claims in this market are all quoted at the machine level and none of them describe the time your team spends reviewing output, which is the step that actually sets your schedule. When each field carries a page reference, a clause reference and a confidence score, a reviewer can check the fifteen fields the model was unsure about instead of re reading four hundred leases. Feed the checked data into the subledger and your ASC 842 numbers inherit that audit trail rather than starting a new one.

If you are still building a shortlist rather than choosing between two products, the lease abstraction software roundup covers the field, and FinQuery and LeaseCrunch are the two closest comparisons to Trullion if lease accounting is genuinely your driver.