Kolleno

Name: Kolleno
Brand: Kolleno
Rating: 4.9 (108 reviews)

AI Native

Solving Complex Accounts Receivable Processes

Est 2020|Valuation $24.8M|Raised $6.3M|35 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 6K|Website|Web traffic 26K|FTEs 26|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsInvoicing & Payment Processing Dunning & Collections Management Accounts Receivable (AR) Automation

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Kolleno | Upflow | HighRadius | |--------|---------|--------|------------| | Starting Price | Published per-user pricing available from the vendor | Pricing page is benefits-led; specific public price not captured in this research | Quote-based; pricing described as subscription-based / outcome-based options | | Typical fit | Mid-market to enterprise teams seeking a broad O2C toolset (collections + payments + reconciliation + disputes + forecasting) with configurable workflows | Scaling B2B/SaaS AR teams focusing on AR visibility, segmentation, and DSO tracking | Large enterprises needing broad O2C automation across multiple modules and complex environments | | Key strength | Broad workflow automation, payments portal, and an integration-focused approach; publishes list pricing which is less common in this category | Focus on AR collaboration and visibility; often used in B2B SaaS contexts | Enterprise-grade breadth; extensive module suite (collections, cash application, deductions, credit, invoicing portals, analytics) | | Key weakness | Public reviews sampled are heavily positive (reducing visibility into negatives); some feedback indicates reporting/dashboard customization gaps; published per-user pricing can be relatively costly for smaller teams | Feature depth may be limited for complex enterprise scenarios (validate independently) | Potential for longer implementations and governance overhead; pricing transparency is limited | - Narrative analysis - Kolleno vs Upflow - Third-party commentary describes both as mid-market/enterprise AR platforms with different emphases: Upflow is often positioned toward SaaS-metrics visibility, while Kolleno emphasizes a broader set of O2C features including credit risk and dispute management. These observations are third-party commentary and should be validated through product demos and customer references. - Vendor-authored comparison content should be treated as biased. - Kolleno vs HighRadius - HighRadius is positioned in market materials as a broad O2C automation suite with outcome-oriented pricing for large enterprises; buyers should compare depth of cash application, deductions, dispute workflows, and global controls. - Kolleno vs Chaser - Chaser publishes lower entry pricing and positions around receivables automation and forecasting. For smaller teams or organizations primarily needing reminder workflows, Chaser may be lower-cost and simpler to implement.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Kolleno	Upflow	HighRadius
Starting Price	Published per-user pricing available from the vendor	Pricing page is benefits-led; specific public price not captured in this research	Quote-based; pricing described as subscription-based / outcome-based options
Typical fit	Mid-market to enterprise teams seeking a broad O2C toolset (collections + payments + reconciliation + disputes + forecasting) with configurable workflows	Scaling B2B/SaaS AR teams focusing on AR visibility, segmentation, and DSO tracking	Large enterprises needing broad O2C automation across multiple modules and complex environments
Key strength	Broad workflow automation, payments portal, and an integration-focused approach; publishes list pricing which is less common in this category	Focus on AR collaboration and visibility; often used in B2B SaaS contexts	Enterprise-grade breadth; extensive module suite (collections, cash application, deductions, credit, invoicing portals, analytics)
Key weakness	Public reviews sampled are heavily positive (reducing visibility into negatives); some feedback indicates reporting/dashboard customization gaps; published per-user pricing can be relatively costly for smaller teams	Feature depth may be limited for complex enterprise scenarios (validate independently)	Potential for longer implementations and governance overhead; pricing transparency is limited

Narrative analysis
- Kolleno vs Upflow
  - Third-party commentary describes both as mid-market/enterprise AR platforms with different emphases: Upflow is often positioned toward SaaS-metrics visibility, while Kolleno emphasizes a broader set of O2C features including credit risk and dispute management. These observations are third-party commentary and should be validated through product demos and customer references.
  - Vendor-authored comparison content should be treated as biased.
- Kolleno vs HighRadius
  - HighRadius is positioned in market materials as a broad O2C automation suite with outcome-oriented pricing for large enterprises; buyers should compare depth of cash application, deductions, dispute workflows, and global controls.
- Kolleno vs Chaser
  - Chaser publishes lower entry pricing and positions around receivables automation and forecasting. For smaller teams or organizations primarily needing reminder workflows, Chaser may be lower-cost and simpler to implement.

Aspect

Kolleno

Upflow

HighRadius

Starting Price

Published per-user pricing available from the vendor

Pricing page is benefits-led; specific public price not captured in this research

Quote-based; pricing described as subscription-based / outcome-based options

Typical fit

Mid-market to enterprise teams seeking a broad O2C toolset (collections + payments + reconciliation + disputes + forecasting) with configurable workflows

Scaling B2B/SaaS AR teams focusing on AR visibility, segmentation, and DSO tracking

Large enterprises needing broad O2C automation across multiple modules and complex environments

Key strength

Broad workflow automation, payments portal, and an integration-focused approach; publishes list pricing which is less common in this category

Focus on AR collaboration and visibility; often used in B2B SaaS contexts

Enterprise-grade breadth; extensive module suite (collections, cash application, deductions, credit, invoicing portals, analytics)

Key weakness

Public reviews sampled are heavily positive (reducing visibility into negatives); some feedback indicates reporting/dashboard customization gaps; published per-user pricing can be relatively costly for smaller teams

Feature depth may be limited for complex enterprise scenarios (validate independently)

Potential for longer implementations and governance overhead; pricing transparency is limited