Results-as-a-Service Is Eating SaaS. And CFOs Are Quietly Demanding It

For the last two decades, enterprise software has sold the same promise in different packaging:

Buy our tool, and you’ll get better outcomes.

CFOs and CEOs are no longer buying that promise.

They’re buying results.

This is why Results-as-a-Service (RaaS) is starting to eat traditional SaaS-and why AI-native companies are winning deals that legacy software vendors struggle to even compete for.

The SaaS model breaks down in enterprise finance

Traditional SaaS is built on a simple assumption:

If we give customers powerful tools, they will figure out how to extract value.

In enterprise finance, that assumption routinely fails.

CFOs see this pattern repeatedly:

• AP automation tools are implemented, but invoice cycles barely improve
• Reconciliation software is deployed, yet manual work persists
• Dashboards multiply, but decisions don’t get faster-and errors don’t disappear

The software “works.”
The outcomes don’t.

The real cost of SaaS isn’t the license fee. It’s everything around it:

• Change management
• Configuration and reconfiguration
• Ongoing human supervision to keep the system usable

Enterprises now have more finance software than ever-and less confidence in their results.

Visibility increased.
Ownership did not.

AI didn’t just automate tasks - it exposed SaaS’s limits

AI didn’t merely make software smarter.

It shifted the question of accountability.

AI-native systems can now:

• Ingest messy, real-world data
• Reason across large volumes of transactions
• Improve performance continuously without constant user intervention

Which forces CFOs to ask a far more uncomfortable question:

“If AI can execute this work reliably, why am I still paying for software-and carrying the risk myself?”

That question is lethal to traditional SaaS.

Because SaaS sells access.
Finance leaders want completion.

What Results-as-a-Service actually means

Results-as-a-Service flips the enterprise software model on its head.

Instead of selling:

• Licenses
• Seats
• Feature lists

RaaS sells outcomes:

• Faster financial closes
• Higher invoice accuracy
• Reduced compliance risk
• Lower working capital leakage
• Predictable cost reduction

How the work gets done is secondary.

That it gets done-correctly, consistently, and at scale-is what matters.

In a true RaaS model:

• The vendor owns the complexity
• The vendor owns execution
• The vendor is accountable for performance

This mirrors how CFOs already think:
ROI first. Tooling second.

Why this shift matters more in finance than anywhere else

In most enterprise functions, “mostly right” might be acceptable.

In finance, it isn’t.

A small error rate doesn’t mean marginal inefficiency-it means:

• Audit exposure
• Compliance risk
• Posting errors
• Regulatory consequences

Finance outcomes are binary.
They are auditable.
And the cost of getting them wrong is high.

That’s why finance-especially high-volume processes like accounts payable-is the first place where RaaS becomes not just attractive, but inevitable.

Visibility without execution doesn’t reduce risk.
Execution without accountability doesn’t scale.

Why CFOs prefer RaaS (even if they don’t call it that yet)

CFOs aren’t looking for another transformation project.

They’re looking for predictability.

RaaS offers:

• Business metrics, not adoption metrics
• Time-to-value measured in weeks, not quarters
• Minimal dependence on already stretched internal teams

Most importantly, it eliminates the most common frustration with enterprise software:

“We paid for it-and we still have to make it work.”

With RaaS, if outcomes don’t improve, the vendor-not the finance team-has to answer why.

Why legacy SaaS companies struggle to respond

Legacy SaaS vendors aren’t failing because they lack AI features.

They’re failing because their entire model is misaligned with outcome ownership.

RaaS requires:

• Outcome-based commercial models
• Willingness to absorb execution risk
• Architectures built for autonomous execution, not human-driven workflows

Most SaaS companies are still optimized for:

• Selling more modules
• Increasing seat counts
• Renewals tied to usage-not results

You can’t bolt Results-as-a-Service onto that foundation.

It requires rethinking architecture, incentives, and accountability from the ground up.

The quiet shift already happening in enterprise buying

This change won’t show up immediately in analyst reports.

But it’s already visible in how CFOs evaluate vendors:

• What measurable improvement will I see in 90 days?
• How much internal effort will this require?
• Who owns the outcome if performance doesn’t improve?

These are RaaS questions-even if the term itself is never used.

What this means for finance leaders

For CFOs and CEOs, the implication is clear:

Stop buying tools in the hope of outcomes.
Start demanding outcomes as the product.

AI has made this expectation reasonable.

Vendors who can’t commit contractually to results will increasingly sound outdated-no matter how modern their interfaces look.

The future of enterprise finance isn’t more intelligence.
It’s execution you can trust, audit, and hold accountable.

And that future is already here.

‍