Filed

Name: Filed
Brand: Filed
Rating: 4.4 (3 reviews)

AI Native

More accuracy, less manual work, and the power to take on more clients–without adding to your team.

Est 2024|Valuation $53M|Raised $17.2M|15 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 4K|Web traffic 3K|FTEs 87|HQ Brooklyn, New York, US

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

1) You need a replacement for your tax engine - Filed is positioned as an overlay automation and review workspace; a professional tax suite is still required. 2) Procurement policies demand extensive third-party review coverage - Public review coverage is limited (for example, two G2 reviews). If procurement requires a large independent review footprint, Filed may not yet meet that requirement. 3) Returns are highly idiosyncratic or source-document quality is consistently poor - Document-based extraction systems typically perform worse on poor-quality scans, unusual broker statements, and complex edge cases. Filed emphasizes traceability and review, but firms without review capacity may not realize expected outcomes. 4) Similar gains are achievable through lower-cost workflow improvements - Some firms can achieve improvements through enhanced client portals, stricter intake checklists, outsourcing data entry, or process changes within core tax suites. 5) Security or compliance requirements demand certifications beyond SOC 2 - Filed markets SOC 2; however, if specific attestations such as ISO 27001 are required, procurement should confirm availability.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Very low-volume practices where tooling costs cannot be justified.
Firms requiring fully deterministic automation with near-zero tolerance for draft errors and limited capacity for human review and tuning.
Firms using uncommon tax software stacks that cannot access Filed’s in-software drafting capabilities.

Limitations acknowledged or implied by sources

Automation depth depends on specific tax software: in-software drafting is limited to named suites; otherwise workflows are PDF/upload-based.
AI requires training and tuning to reach consistent performance, as noted in at least one user review.
Benchmark and accuracy claims are vendor-published; independent replication is not shown in accessible sources.

Sources: Filed integrations; Filed pricing and benchmark post; G2.

Roadmap signals

Filed’s funding and press narrative suggest expansion beyond basic prep into broader lifecycle tooling (for example, audit readiness and collaboration). Specific roadmap dates and committed features were not enumerated in the accessible materials.

Source: TechCrunch; Filed newsroom.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by available evidence (vendor statements and limited reviews)

- Integrates with common professional tax software and presents itself as an overlay rather than a replacement for existing suites. - Emphasizes traceability and an audit trail by linking outputs back to source documents, addressing concerns about AI opacity. - Offers a credit-based modular model that separates review/planner functionality from full automation, which may allow incremental adoption. Sources: Filed integrations; Filed advisor page; Filed pricing; G2 reviews.

Where competitors may have advantages

Established tax-suite vendors have long-standing diagnostics, forms coverage, and broader support ecosystems.
Mature vendors may offer more predictable support histories and larger user communities.

Sources: competitor pages (Intuit, Drake, Thomson Reuters, Wolters Kluwer) and general market context.

03Field reports

Review-platform evidence (G2)

G2 shows a very small number of reviews, both positive, which makes it difficult to generalize across diverse use cases. Positive quotes (G2): - “The customization to be able to build a process with the help of the AI…” (Tax Advisor/Owner, small business) - “Filed handles the data entry for us, which lets our team concentrate on strategy…” (CEO/CFO/Founder) Critical/negative element inside an otherwise positive G2 review: - “It needs to be trained like any other AI…” — this implies time and effort are required to reach consistent performance. Source: G2 product and seller pages.

Community/social evidence (Reddit)

Because Filed is relatively new and the brand name is ambiguous, Reddit mentions are limited and sometimes refer to the product under its previous name (Numiro). Notable critical community comments: - In r/taxpros, one commenter stated that Filed was recently rebranded from Numiro and referenced prior negative impressions of the predecessor product. This is hearsay and should be treated cautiously. - In r/taxpros, a user described early-season experience with Numiro as involving slow turnaround times and incomplete returns before switching; this references the pre-rebrand product and may not reflect current performance. More neutral community mentions: - In r/fintech, a thread about tools that handle tax data entry for CPA firms mentions Filed’s RPA-style drafting inside Drake/UltraTax/ProConnect/CCH Axcess, which aligns with vendor statements. Sources: Industry Reddit and community threads.

Vendor testimonials (case-study-style quotes)

Filed’s homepage contains testimonial quotes from named firms and leaders (e.g., Paramount Tax, JCG Tax, Track) describing shifts from typing/data entry to review and reported throughput improvements.

Caution: these are vendor-selected testimonials; no publicly disclosed methodology, sample size, or baseline definitions are provided.

Source: Official vendor product pages.

Gartner Peer Insights, TrustRadius

Gartner Peer Insights: no clear Filed listing was surfaced in accessible results; Gartner often requires interactive browsing and may not provide result snippets.
TrustRadius: no TrustRadius product review page for Filed was surfaced in accessible results.

Treat Gartner and TrustRadius evidence for Filed as not found in accessible sources during this research.

Vendor-cited results

Filed highlights customer stories claiming shifts from data-entry work toward review and faster throughput.

However:

Homepage quotes are anecdotal.
The pricing page reports claims of substantial time savings and reduced per-return review times after automation; the methodology, sample distribution, and return-complexity mix supporting those claims are not publicly detailed.

Sources: Official vendor website and product/pricing pages.

Press coverage suggests traction but is not an audit

TechCrunch and other press coverage describe Filed’s goals and product approach. Press coverage provides directional validation of market interest but does not independently validate vendor-reported outcomes.

Sources: Press coverage and industry press summaries.

04Best fit

Company size

Best-fit appears to be mid-sized U.S. tax firms with sufficient recurring return volume to justify process automation, likely small-to-mid-sized firms by headcount (inferred; Filed does not publish an ICP by headcount). These firms are typically those that reach capacity constraints during peak season. Evidence hints: - Vendor messaging emphasizes scaling practice capacity without increasing headcount and targeting higher-volume U.S. tax practices. Sources: Official vendor documentation (pricing and trust/security pages).

Industries/verticals

CPA and tax firms serving individuals and small businesses with W-2/1099/K-1 workflows, including multi-state returns.

Roles/personas

Decision makers: managing partners, firm owners, tax practice leaders, and operations leaders.
End users: preparers, reviewers, and administrative staff handling intake and binders.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Uses one of the supported tax stacks for deeper automation (Drake/ProConnect/UltraTax/CCH Axcess).
Has consistent intake volumes and standardized source-document patterns.
Is willing to pilot and tune AI outputs with a strong quality-control process.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Filed positions itself as an “Intelligent Tax Workspace” for CPA/tax firms that automates tax-return data entry and standardizes and organizes client source documents ("binders"), then supports AI-assisted review (flagging anomalies/diagnostics) and advisory insights (tax planning opportunities). It is designed to integrate with existing professional tax software rather than replace it. Key functional themes repeated across Filed’s site: - Intake + binder organization: drag-and-drop uploads or pull from connected document systems; Filed classifies and sorts documents into a structured binder. (Official product pages emphasize extraction of client data and binder standardization.) - Prep automation: for certain tax stacks, Filed states it can operate inside tax software and draft returns by performing the typing/entry steps (RPA-style automation), then hand off for human review. - AI review + traceability: flags issues and hyperlinks outputs back to source documents and form lines for verification. - Advisory: generates planning reports and packaged deliverables from return data. Sources: Official vendor documentation and product pages; vendor integrations and FAQ; vendor pricing and advisor pages.

Target market and market positioning

- Primary target: U.S. tax preparation and accounting firms (CPA firms, tax advisory practices) that process meaningful return volume and face staffing or time constraints. - Positioning: marketed to increase capacity without adding headcount; aimed at reducing manual data entry and shifting staff focus from preparation to review/advisory. - Deployment style: marketed as additive to existing workflows and intended to integrate with firms' current tax software. Sources: Official vendor documentation and product pages; vendor integrations and FAQ; vendor pricing and help pages.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Filed including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

You need a replacement for your tax engine

Filed is positioned as an overlay automation and review workspace; a professional tax suite is still required.

Procurement policies demand extensive third-party review coverage

Public review coverage is limited (for example, two G2 reviews). If procurement requires a large independent review footprint, Filed may not yet meet that requirement.

Returns are highly idiosyncratic or source-document quality is consistently poor

Document-based extraction systems typically perform worse on poor-quality scans, unusual broker statements, and complex edge cases. Filed emphasizes traceability and review, but firms without review capacity may not realize expected outcomes.

Similar gains are achievable through lower-cost workflow improvements

Some firms can achieve improvements through enhanced client portals, stricter intake checklists, outsourcing data entry, or process changes within core tax suites.

Security or compliance requirements demand certifications beyond SOC 2

Filed markets SOC 2; however, if specific attestations such as ISO 27001 are required, procurement should confirm availability.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Very low-volume practices where tooling costs cannot be justified.
Firms requiring fully deterministic automation with near-zero tolerance for draft errors and limited capacity for human review and tuning.
Firms using uncommon tax software stacks that cannot access Filed’s in-software drafting capabilities.

Limitations acknowledged or implied by sources

Automation depth depends on specific tax software: in-software drafting is limited to named suites; otherwise workflows are PDF/upload-based.
AI requires training and tuning to reach consistent performance, as noted in at least one user review.
Benchmark and accuracy claims are vendor-published; independent replication is not shown in accessible sources.

Sources: Filed integrations; Filed pricing and benchmark post; G2.

Roadmap signals

Source: TechCrunch; Filed newsroom.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by available evidence (vendor statements and limited reviews)

Integrates with common professional tax software and presents itself as an overlay rather than a replacement for existing suites.
Emphasizes traceability and an audit trail by linking outputs back to source documents, addressing concerns about AI opacity.
Offers a credit-based modular model that separates review/planner functionality from full automation, which may allow incremental adoption.

Sources: Filed integrations; Filed advisor page; Filed pricing; G2 reviews.

Where competitors may have advantages

Established tax-suite vendors have long-standing diagnostics, forms coverage, and broader support ecosystems.
Mature vendors may offer more predictable support histories and larger user communities.

Sources: competitor pages (Intuit, Drake, Thomson Reuters, Wolters Kluwer) and general market context.

03Field reports

Review-platform evidence (G2)

G2 shows a very small number of reviews, both positive, which makes it difficult to generalize across diverse use cases.

Positive quotes (G2):

“The customization to be able to build a process with the help of the AI…” (Tax Advisor/Owner, small business)
“Filed handles the data entry for us, which lets our team concentrate on strategy…” (CEO/CFO/Founder)

Critical/negative element inside an otherwise positive G2 review:

“It needs to be trained like any other AI…” — this implies time and effort are required to reach consistent performance.

Source: G2 product and seller pages.

Community/social evidence (Reddit)

Because Filed is relatively new and the brand name is ambiguous, Reddit mentions are limited and sometimes refer to the product under its previous name (Numiro).

Notable critical community comments:

In r/taxpros, one commenter stated that Filed was recently rebranded from Numiro and referenced prior negative impressions of the predecessor product. This is hearsay and should be treated cautiously.
In r/taxpros, a user described early-season experience with Numiro as involving slow turnaround times and incomplete returns before switching; this references the pre-rebrand product and may not reflect current performance.

More neutral community mentions:

In r/fintech, a thread about tools that handle tax data entry for CPA firms mentions Filed’s RPA-style drafting inside Drake/UltraTax/ProConnect/CCH Axcess, which aligns with vendor statements.

Sources: Industry Reddit and community threads.

Vendor testimonials (case-study-style quotes)

Caution: these are vendor-selected testimonials; no publicly disclosed methodology, sample size, or baseline definitions are provided.

Source: Official vendor product pages.

Gartner Peer Insights, TrustRadius

Gartner Peer Insights: no clear Filed listing was surfaced in accessible results; Gartner often requires interactive browsing and may not provide result snippets.
TrustRadius: no TrustRadius product review page for Filed was surfaced in accessible results.

Treat Gartner and TrustRadius evidence for Filed as not found in accessible sources during this research.

Vendor-cited results

Filed highlights customer stories claiming shifts from data-entry work toward review and faster throughput.

However:

Homepage quotes are anecdotal.
The pricing page reports claims of substantial time savings and reduced per-return review times after automation; the methodology, sample distribution, and return-complexity mix supporting those claims are not publicly detailed.

Sources: Official vendor website and product/pricing pages.

Press coverage suggests traction but is not an audit

Sources: Press coverage and industry press summaries.

04Best fit

Company size

Evidence hints:

Vendor messaging emphasizes scaling practice capacity without increasing headcount and targeting higher-volume U.S. tax practices.

Sources: Official vendor documentation (pricing and trust/security pages).

Industries/verticals

CPA and tax firms serving individuals and small businesses with W-2/1099/K-1 workflows, including multi-state returns.

Roles/personas

Decision makers: managing partners, firm owners, tax practice leaders, and operations leaders.
End users: preparers, reviewers, and administrative staff handling intake and binders.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Uses one of the supported tax stacks for deeper automation (Drake/ProConnect/UltraTax/CCH Axcess).
Has consistent intake volumes and standardized source-document patterns.
Is willing to pilot and tune AI outputs with a strong quality-control process.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Key functional themes repeated across Filed’s site:

Intake + binder organization: drag-and-drop uploads or pull from connected document systems; Filed classifies and sorts documents into a structured binder. (Official product pages emphasize extraction of client data and binder standardization.)
Prep automation: for certain tax stacks, Filed states it can operate inside tax software and draft returns by performing the typing/entry steps (RPA-style automation), then hand off for human review.
AI review + traceability: flags issues and hyperlinks outputs back to source documents and form lines for verification.
Advisory: generates planning reports and packaged deliverables from return data.

Sources: Official vendor documentation and product pages; vendor integrations and FAQ; vendor pricing and advisor pages.

Target market and market positioning

Primary target: U.S. tax preparation and accounting firms (CPA firms, tax advisory practices) that process meaningful return volume and face staffing or time constraints.
Positioning: marketed to increase capacity without adding headcount; aimed at reducing manual data entry and shifting staff focus from preparation to review/advisory.
Deployment style: marketed as additive to existing workflows and intended to integrate with firms' current tax software.

Sources: Official vendor documentation and product pages; vendor integrations and FAQ; vendor pricing and help pages.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Filed including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →