- Direct quotes from review platforms and community sources
- Gartner Peer Insights
- Attempts to access Gartner Peer Insights content were restricted in this research session.
- G2 (MRI ProLease)
- Positive example:
- “ProLease has helped our team become more organized with our many leases… With the critical date reminders and comprehensive data fields we are able to stay on top of our locations needs and ensure that we do not miss any necessary deadlines.” (G2, a recent review.)
- Mixed/negative examples:
- “It would be helpful if more of the features were available under the same software purchase… since it is an additional cost we do not utilize it.” (G2, a user review.)
- “ProLease overcomplicates lease management and is not very user friendly… standalone system, everything is manual.” (G2, a very negative review.)
- “Not suitable for large corporation with complex lease arrangement… Dislike too many screens… ask for long trial access and do not jump into a contract straight away.” (G2, a negative review.)
- Capterra (MRI ProLease)
- Strongly negative example (review attributed to a CFO):
- “We did not have a good experience with MRI… We went through a very painful audit using MRI software. The system was unable to produce reports that our auditors needed for ASC842 compliance.” (Capterra.)
- Cons listed: “Very clunky to use… Out of box reports aren't fit for purpose… Very expensive… There are cheaper, easier to use systems out there that most audit firms would recommend.” (Capterra.)
- TrustRadius
- TrustRadius indicates a limited review volume for ProLease and notes no free trial is listed on the product pricing tab.
- Reddit (lease accounting tooling discussions)
- In a community discussion one commenter lists MRI and Yardi among commonly used tools; other commenters identify alternatives and note that AI-enabled tools have recently received increased attention.
- HackerNews
- Searches did not return significant public discussions about MRI ProLease in the accessible results.
- Common criticisms and complaints (support issues, bugs, missing features)
- Reporting gaps and out-of-box reports not meeting some auditors’ requirements (Capterra negative review).
- Usability complaints: descriptions of the UI as "clunky," multiple screens, and workflows perceived as overcomplicated.
- Data entry edge cases: reported difficulty entering certain charge types (example: one-time charges).
- Module fragmentation and add-on costs: reviewers note that some features are not included in base packages.
- Why customers chose this product over alternatives
- Automation of ASC 842 schedules, monthly journal entries, and disclosure reporting is cited as a reason for adoption in some reviews.
- Centralization of lease records and documents to reduce spreadsheet reliance is a common rationale.
- Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)
- Publicly accessible direct churn narratives are limited, but review themes suggest possible drivers: misalignment with auditor reporting needs and perceived cost/value mismatch.
- Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available)
- Vendor-published claim: one customer reported a very large reduction in time spent abstracting and validating data (no methodology or independent verification provided).
- Most customer-stated outcomes found in public reviews are qualitative (improved organization, better tracking of critical dates).
- Customer pain points and frustrations mentioned in reviews
- Audit readiness and reporting suitability for auditor workflows are recurring concerns.
- Workflow friction and manual steps are commonly mentioned.
- Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase
- Lack of a publicly listed free trial, difficulty validating reporting fit before contract, and perceived reporting limitations are cited as procurement concerns by reviewers and community contributors.