Accounts Payable Statistics 2026: Every Figure Traced to Its Report and Edition

These 59 accounts payable statistics for 2026 each name the publisher, the edition, and the sample wherever the publisher states one. A closing audit lists 13 widely repeated claims that trace to no current study.

The central finding is that cost per invoice has no single current number. Ardent Partners’ State of ePayables 2025 puts the average at $12.42, its AP Metrics that Matter 2025 report at $9.40, and the 2026 edition of that series at $9.90. One analyst firm published all three, each with a vendor sponsor, and the public pages for the three reports do not reconcile them. Digital Minds BPO, a business process outsourcing company in Naga City, Philippines, compiled this audit from third-party sources; it holds no proprietary accounts payable (AP) benchmark data, and none of the figures describes its own operations.

How These Accounts Payable Statistics Were Sourced

Each figure was read in October 2026 on the publisher’s page or release, on a sponsor’s page hosting the report, or, where the table says so, on a syndicated or secondary page. The table gives every source with its edition, sample, and label.

Ardent, IOFM with AvidXchange, Ottimate, and IFOL are vendor-funded or vendor-run, and each carries that label in every table row, key statistic, and FAQ answer that quotes it. Three things are gated and therefore not quoted: Ardent’s full reports, APQC’s absolute benchmark values, and IOFM’s AP benchmarking data. Where APQC publishes a ratio and not the dollar value, the post quotes the ratio and says so.

The count of 59 gives each published finding one count. A figure travels with its own best-in-class comparison and with any earlier value the same release prints beside it, so each payment method in the Federal Reserve table counts once across its years, and a split of answers to one question counts once. Our own arithmetic, the 2008 and 2010 origin figures, and the audit table are not counted. Market-wide figures sit in our outsourcing statistics roundup; this post covers accounts payable only.

Key Accounts Payable Statistics for 2026

• Cost per invoice: Ardent Partners’ State of ePayables 2025 puts the average at $12.42 against $2.65 for best-in-class, while its AP Metrics that Matter 2026 puts it at $9.90 against $2.67 (both sponsor-funded).
• Exception rate: 19.9% at the average organization against 11.8% at best-in-class (Ardent, AP Metrics that Matter 2026, sponsor-funded).
• Processing time: 8.2 days at the industry average against 2.9 with advanced automation (State of ePayables 2025), and 17.4 days against 3.1 for best-in-class (AP Metrics that Matter 2025). Different reports, different definitions, both sponsor-funded.
• Productivity: APQC’s 2018 ratios say top performers are 5x as productive as bottom performers, and bottom performers need 4x the full-time equivalents (FTEs).
• Fraud: 76% of organizations experienced attempted or actual payments fraud in 2025, and checks were the most targeted method at 58% (AFP 2026, n=465).
• Payment methods: checks were 9.2 billion of 236.6 billion US noncash payments in 2024 (Federal Reserve; all noncash payments, wires excluded, not business-to-business).
• Automation: 4% of 225 mid-market finance leaders report AP fully automated from invoice to payment (Ottimate 2026, vendor-run).
• Workforce: BLS projects a 6% decline for bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks from 2025 to 2035, while 69% of 588 AP professionals say automation would help their role now (IOFM with AvidXchange, 2025, vendor-sponsored).

Cost per Invoice Statistics, Traced to Each Edition

The average cost to process an invoice appears in more versions than any other figure in this post. The table shows every version that traces to a source, with its edition. Call it the edition rule: a cost per invoice without a report name and a year cannot be cited.

Inside one edition, the numbers agree with each other. In State of ePayables 2025, $2.65 is 21% of $12.42, which fits the 79% reduction Ardent reports (our calculation). Across editions they do not line up: $12.42 and $9.90 differ by $2.52 (our calculation). They come from two Ardent report series, State of ePayables (204 respondents) and AP Metrics that Matter (nearly 200 in 2026, none stated in 2025). The likeliest explanation is different samples and definitions; that is our inference, because the full reports are gated.

Two other numbers circulate as Ardent’s 2025 figure, $10.89 and $12.88. Neither appears on the sponsor pages for Ardent’s 2025 reports, so both sit in the audit table below.

APQC’s ratios are the only independent cost comparison here. The 2018 post summarizing its Blueprint for Success: Accounts Payable states no sample and no benchmark year, so the one-fifth and twofold ratios are directional and dated.

Where the $15 and $53.50 Figures Come From

Aberdeen Group’s study of hundreds of US accounts payable departments in 2008 put an invoice at about $15 and best-in-class below $4. Sterling Commerce’s 2010 survey, reported by IndustryWeek, put a manual AP invoice at $30 and the cost of fixing a paper invoice error at $53.50. Both reach us through secondary coverage, both are more than 15 years old, and neither secondary page prints a sample size, so they appear here as origins only and are not counted among the 59.

To set any published average beside your own labor cost per invoice, divide the minutes your team spends per invoice by 60 and multiply by your fully loaded hourly cost. BLS puts the median wage for bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks at $24.36 per hour (2025), before benefits and overhead.

Invoice Processing Time and Exception Rate Benchmarks

Accounts payable benchmarks for speed come from three reports, and no two measure the same thing. The table keeps each report’s name, and each report’s own label for its comparison groups, beside its numbers.

Measure	Average or other organizations	Best-in-class or advanced automation	Source and label
Exception rate	19.9% (average organization)	11.8% (best-in-class)	Ardent, AP Metrics that Matter 2026; sponsor-funded
Days to process	8.2 days (industry average)	2.9 days (advanced automation)	Ardent, State of ePayables 2025 (n=204); sponsor-funded
Days to process	17.4 days (industry average)	3.1 days (best-in-class)	Ardent, AP Metrics that Matter 2025; sponsor-funded
Exception rate	22% (organizations other than best-in-class)	9% (best-in-class)	Ardent, AP Metrics that Matter 2025; sponsor-funded
Invoices taking 5 or more days	38% of respondents	Not reported	Ottimate 2026 (n=225); vendor-run

Read more11 Reasons Why Businesses Should Consider Outsourcing Invoice Processing

Figures are as published unless marked as our calculation. Ardent defines each measure in its gated full report, and the 8.2-day and 17.4-day figures are not interchangeable.

At 19.9%, roughly one invoice in five is an exception at the average organization in Ardent’s 2026 data.

Between the 2025 and 2026 editions, the comparison rate moved from 22% (organizations other than best-in-class) to 19.9% (the average organization), while the best-in-class rate rose from 9% to 11.8%. That is not a trend. The two editions are different reports with differently labeled comparison groups, the 2025 sample is not stated, and the 2026 sample is nearly 200 respondents.

Ottimate’s State of AP Maturity 2026 adds a mid-market view: 38% of the 225 finance leaders surveyed say invoices take five or more days. Ottimate ran the survey, so the figure carries a vendor-run label.

AP Productivity Metrics: Invoices per FTE

Productivity has the least public data of the four AP metrics in this post. APQC’s 2018 post on the KPIs that set good accounts payable organizations apart gives three ratios in the open and keeps absolute values for members.

A pair of absolute figures, 23,333 invoices per FTE against 6,082, circulates under APQC’s name. APQC’s absolute values are member-gated, so the pair cannot be checked at the source. Divide one by the other and the ratio is 3.8 (our calculation), which does not match the 5x in the 2018 post.

Four accounts payable KPIs anchor this post: cost per invoice, processing time, exception rate, and invoices per FTE. The first three have current public values from Ardent. The fourth has ratios only. For the keying side of invoice work, see our invoice data entry services.

Payments Fraud Statistics for AP Teams

The Association for Financial Professionals (AFP) runs the annual payments fraud survey behind both tables. Respondents are treasury and corporate payments practitioners, so the findings cover whole organizations, of which AP is one part.

Vendor imposter fraud is the finding closest to the AP desk, because the fraudster poses as one of the company’s suppliers. It rose 11 points to 45% in the 2025 survey. In the same survey, the share recovering 75% or more of their losses fell from 41% to 22%.

The 2026 survey puts checks at 58% as the most targeted method, 5 points below the 63% for checks in the 2025 survey (our calculation). BEC affected 74% of 2026 respondents against 63% of 2025 respondents. Each year’s respondents answered a separate survey, so read both changes as direction only.

Payment Method Statistics: Checks, ACH, and Cards

The Federal Reserve Payments Study counts how the US pays, and its top-line table covers all noncash payments. Wire transfers are excluded, and there is no business-to-business split, so none of these rows describes what AP teams alone pay.

Between 2021 and 2024 the check count fell from 11.0 billion to 9.2 billion, about 16%, while the ACH count rose from 36.0 billion to 39.7 billion, about 10% (our calculations). Checks were about 4% of noncash payments by count and about 17% by value in 2024 (our calculation).

AFP’s surveys explain why checks persist. In 2026, 72% of organizations that use checks said they plan to keep using them, and 68% of those cited vendor requirements. In 2025, more than 75% had no plans to reduce check usage over the next two years. That is a statement about plans, so a repeated line that 75% of companies still use paper checks is not what AFP reported (our reading).

Accounts Payable Automation Statistics

Automation figures come almost entirely from vendor-run or sponsor-funded surveys, so every row below carries its label and its sample.

Ottimate finds 4% of mid-market organizations fully automated from invoice to payment, yet Ardent finds 58% using or piloting AI. The two measure different things on different samples: piloting a tool is not running a touchless process.

Ardent’s 44% in 2025 and 58% in 2026 come from two different reports, and the 2026 figure counts pilots, so the 14-point gap is a difference between reports.

Ottimate’s control figures show where people stay in the loop: 50% require two or more approvers, and 52% use manual review as a fraud control. In these surveys, automation reaches keying and matching first, while approvals and fraud controls still run through AP staff (our reading). For the case for outsourcing the repetitive part, read our guide to the reasons to outsource invoice processing.

The IFOL report page states no sample or fieldwork dates, so only its 2025 figures appear here, with no year-on-year changes.

Accounts Payable Workforce Statistics

BLS lists accounts payable clerk as one title within bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks, so its figures describe a wider group than AP staff. The IOFM with AvidXchange survey asks AP professionals directly. Its 588 respondents range from staff to upper management, and AvidXchange sponsored it.

Both layoff worry and optimism come from the same 588 people: 45% were worried about layoffs in 2025, up from 27% in 2024, yet 69% said automation would help their role now. The question asks which tasks respondents would eliminate, so it measures appetite for less repetitive work (our reading).

One more IOFM finding needs its context. Among respondents who were “extremely satisfied,” 59% worked in largely or fully automated environments and 2% in fully manual ones. That is a subgroup finding, not an industry share.

BLS projects the occupation to shrink 6% and attributes the decline to technological change: in its words, “software innovations have automated many of the tasks” these clerks perform, so the same work needs fewer employees. BLS does not break the decline out by title, and the IOFM survey finds the tasks AP professionals most want to eliminate are manual approvals and manual data entry. Neither source measures AI replacing AP teams. We read both as automation taking the keying first, while exceptions, controls, and supplier relationships stay with AP staff. For the wider function, see our outsourced accounting services; the same sourcing method applied to another back-office function is in our payroll outsourcing statistics.

Accounts Payable Figures We Could Not Trace to a Current Study

Thirteen claims recur on AP pages with no study behind them, with a study that says something different, or with a study more than 15 years old. A figure on this list may still be true; what is missing is a current source you can cite. Each row names the study and edition where one exists and says “no primary found” where the trail ends without one.

The edition rule tells you what to cite instead. For cost per invoice, name the report: Ardent’s State of ePayables 2025 ($12.42), AP Metrics that Matter 2025 ($9.40), or AP Metrics that Matter 2026 ($9.90), each labeled sponsor-funded. For productivity, quote APQC’s ratios with the year 2018. For payment methods, use the Federal Reserve table and say “all noncash payments, wires excluded.” If a page cites a figure from this audit, ask for the study and the edition; when neither exists, leave the number out.

Conclusion

Cost per invoice, processing time, and exception rate each have current public values, but only by report and edition. Apply the edition rule: cite Ardent’s State of ePayables 2025, AP Metrics that Matter 2025, or AP Metrics that Matter 2026 by name, and keep the 2008 and 2010 figures labeled as history.

Digital Minds BPO has built dedicated teams since 2010. Our outsourced accounts payable services put office-based teams inside your own AP tools, so your people can concentrate on exceptions, controls, and supplier relationships. Teams that also want help on the receivables side can read about our accounts receivable services.

FAQ: Accounts Payable Statistics

What are the key metrics for accounts payable?

The accounts payable metrics with public benchmarks are cost per invoice, processing time, exception rate, and invoices per FTE. Ardent Partners’ sponsor-funded 2026 data gives $9.90 per invoice (best-in-class $2.67) and a 19.9% exception rate (best-in-class 11.8%). For processing time, State of ePayables 2025 reports 8.2 days at the industry average against 2.9 with advanced automation, and AP Metrics that Matter 2025 reports 17.4 against 3.1 for best-in-class, on different definitions; both are sponsor-funded. For productivity, APQC publishes ratios only.

What is the average cost to process an invoice?

No single current figure exists. Ardent Partners reports $12.42 (State of ePayables 2025, 204 respondents), $9.40 (AP Metrics that Matter 2025), and $9.90 (AP Metrics that Matter 2026), all sponsor-funded. Best-in-class organizations report $2.65 and $2.67. The older $15 and $30 figures date from 2008 and 2010.

What percentage of invoices have exceptions?

Ardent’s sponsor-funded AP Metrics that Matter 2026 puts the exception rate at 19.9% for the average organization and 11.8% for best-in-class. The 2025 edition reported 22% for organizations other than best-in-class and 9% for best-in-class. They are separate reports with differently labeled comparison groups, so the change is not a trend.

Will accounts payable be replaced by AI?

No source in this post measures AI replacing AP staff. IOFM with AvidXchange (588 AP professionals, May 2025, vendor-sponsored) found 45% worried about layoffs and 69% saying automation would help their role now; the tasks they most want to eliminate are manual approvals (46%) and manual data entry (45%). BLS projects a 6% decline for bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks from 2025 to 2035, attributes it to software automating routine tasks, and does not break it out by title or name AI. We read that evidence as keying and matching shrinking first, while exceptions, controls, and supplier relationships stay with people.

How many companies have fully automated accounts payable?

Ottimate’s State of AP Maturity 2026 found 4% of 225 mid-market finance leaders fully automated from invoice to payment, 89% partly automated, and 7% not automated, in a vendor-run survey. The repeated 20% figure has no primary source; the audit table above shows the closest origin we found.

Sofia Reyes

Sofia Reyes is a Content Writer and SEO Specialist at Digital Minds BPO, where she focuses on outsourcing-industry research and educational content for business decision-makers. Based in the Philippines, she has 7 years of experience writing B2B content across SEO, content strategy, and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). Sofia partners with Digital Minds BPO’s operations and account management teams to translate 15+ years of frontline BPO experience into clear, sourced guides on call center, customer service, and back-office outsourcing. Her work supports prospects evaluating outsourcing decisions across the company’s three dedicated facilities, where the team delivers a 94% client retention rate for clients ranging from Fortune 500 enterprises to growth-stage businesses.