Blog written by Jon Brucato
What industry research says about invoice efficiency, accuracy, and operational control.
An invoice can create work across an entire retail operation. Store teams check deliveries. Accounts payable reconciles charges. Inventory and merchandising teams need accurate quantities and vendor costs. When that information must be re-entered, tracked down, or corrected, the same transaction consumes time in several departments.
Industry standards organizations and AP researchers point toward a more efficient approach: exchange structured data electronically, connect it to the systems people use, and manage exceptions through a consistent process. Electronic data interchange, or EDI, helps put that approach into practice.[1][2][4]
For retailers, the case starts with everyday execution: less repetitive work, more usable information, and better control over what vendors bill.
What the Performance Benchmarks Show
In The State of ePayables 2025, Ardent Partners compared best-in-class AP teams with all other respondents. The stronger performers combined greater electronic invoice participation with shorter processing cycles and lower exception rates.[
| AP performance measure | Best in Class | All Others |
|---|---|---|
| Invoice processing time | 2.9 days | 13.5 days |
| Invoice exception rates | 11.1% | 20.9% |
| Invoices processed straight through | 51.0% | 29.0% |
| Vendors submitting invoices electronically | 67.2% | 47.3% |
Source: Ardent Partners, 2025, Table 2. These cross-industry benchmarks describe overall AP performance; they are not a retail-only study or a measurement of EDI’s impact in isolation. Electronic invoicing is broader than EDI and can use several technologies.
Less Manual Handling and Fewer Errors
GS1 identifies reduced paper handling and rekeying, faster data exchange, and fewer manual input errors as direct benefits of EDI.[3] Applied to invoice processing, this means employees can spend less time recreating billing information and more time reviewing the transactions that need attention.
For a retailer, that might mean reducing the repeated entry of product quantities, costs, and invoice numbers. Removing an entry step also removes an opportunity to mistype information. A vendor can still send an incorrect charge, but the retailer no longer needs to introduce another version of the invoice through manual transcription.
More Attention for the Exceptions That Matter
Ardent’s best-in-class teams reported an 11.1% invoice exception rate versus 20.9% for their peers—approximately 47% lower.[2] That comparison highlights the importance of managing the conditions that interrupt invoice processing, including mismatched information and incomplete records.
Ardent describes electronic invoicing as maintaining digital information through validation, matching, and approval, and identifies two- or three-way matching as a control used by leading AP teams.[2] EDI can supply invoice data to those configured workflows.
Fewer Avoidable Delays in the Payment Process
The Institute of Finance & Management (IOFM) reports that the share of surveyed organizations moving invoices from receipt to ready-to-pay in under a week fell from 80% in summer 2025 to 52% in winter 2025/2026. Its report treats slower processing as a risk to vendor relationships, with implications for procurement and treasury.[4]
Electronic invoice intake can reduce delays caused by collecting and entering invoice information. Approval workflows, dispute resolution, and payment scheduling still determine when a vendor is paid. The operational benefit is having the invoice ready for review sooner, so missing documents or entry backlogs are less likely to hold up the process.
Better Data for Cost Visibility and Operational Decisions
APQC’s 2025 research, based on a global survey of 2,500 finance leaders, found that 59% identified access to reliable data as an automation challenge. Its analysis emphasizes that consistent, high-quality data is a prerequisite for effective automation.[5]
The CFO of Atlantis Management Group, a Fintech client, reported that EDI invoicing freed up time for higher-level reviews and improved the team’s ability to identify vendor cost exceptions.[7] That supports the practical value of usable invoice information for cost review, while remaining a customer-reported outcome rather than an industry-wide benchmark.
How Fintech Helps Retailers Apply These Practices
PaymentSource® provides a practical way to extend electronic invoice integration to all vendors. Fintech consolidates and standardizes invoice information for delivery into connected back-office systems. Vendors without electronic invoicing capabilities can use Invoice Builder to create digital invoices through a portal, if they choose to participate.[6]
Sprint Mart provides another retail example: its price book and internal auditing departments each saved 10–15 hours per week, while its controller estimated an additional 5–10 hours saved weekly in accounts payable. They redirected time previously spent correcting manual entry errors to more productive work. [8]
The industry guidance points retailers toward a clear priority: improve the flow and usability of invoice information. Whether the goal is freeing staff time, reviewing charges more effectively, or reducing processing delays, EDI can be a valuable part of a well-managed invoice process.
To explore how these practices could apply to your invoices, discuss your vendor mix, back-office integration, and current workflow with Fintech.
Sources
1. GS1 US. Share Information Electronically. EDI definition and operational applications.
2. Ardent Partners. The State of ePayables 2025: AP’s Unfinished Journey. June 2025. Table 2, p. 24; electronic invoicing and vendor participation, p. 16; matching controls, p. 28. Figures verified in the supplied Medius-sponsored edition. Approximately 47% lower calculated from 11.1% versus 20.9%.
3. GS1. What are the benefits of EDI? Updated September 2, 2024.
4. IOFM. Slower AP Payments Risk Supplier Relationships. 2026. Processing-cycle findings, p. 2; vendor relationship implications, p. 3; integration barriers, p. 4. Cycle time measures invoice receipt to ready-to-pay, not actual payment date.
5. APQC. Finance Automation in Action: Metrics, Momentum, and Maturity. October 2025, pp. 1 and 3. Public listing is titled “Metrics, Momentum, and What Comes Next.” Report developed in collaboration with IBM Institute for Business Value.
6. Fintech. PaymentSource Invoice Data Management. Product capabilities; see also the Atlantis case study for PaymentSource Premium usage.
7. Fintech. Tapping into EDI Benefits: How a Single Integration Fuels Efficiency for Atlantis Management Group. Customer-reported results, pp. 1–2.
8. Fintech. Sprint Mart. Customer-reported weekly time savings; AP savings are the controller’s estimate.
