For companies, not individuals. Some accounting firms can, and smaller practices qualify here more often than in most industries: Mode publishes a 10+ employee minimum for accounting firms. Whether a sale makes sense comes down to one gate, which is what your duties to clients allow you to share.
Last checked: 7 October 2026. Buyer terms are quoted as published on the buyers' own pages.
Labs are training systems to do real office work. An accounting practice documents its work more carefully than almost any other small business.
AI companies and the data companies that supply them are no longer only after public text. They want records of how trained people do a job: the steps, the checks, the reasons for a decision, and the corrections when something was wrong. micro1's data partnership page lists what it looks for: SOPs, knowledge bases, internal documentation, CRM data, project histories and QA processes, plus what it calls "decision-making patterns" and "AI performance feedback", meaning human feedback on AI outputs.
A working accounting firm produces exactly that kind of record as a side effect of doing the job. A month-end close leaves a checklist, a reconciliation, a reviewer's notes and a sign-off. A tax season leaves an intake process, a preparer's questions, a reviewer's corrections and an approval. Each of these is a chain of work with a beginning, a decision and an outcome, and that chain is what buyers describe wanting.
The systems firms already use are on the buyers' own lists. The data sources buyers name include QuickBooks, Xero, NetSuite and Paychex for finance, Outlook and Gmail for email, SharePoint and Google Drive for documents, Microsoft Teams and Slack for messages, and DocuSign for signed paperwork. A firm that has run on these tools for several years has a history that can, in principle, be scoped and exported.
There is a second signal. Mode publishes a lower employee minimum for accounting firms than its general rule, so accounting is a sector it will look at below its usual size. That says nothing about what any particular firm would be paid.
Checklists, tie-outs and the order of steps your team follows each month, stripped of client figures and names.
What reviewers flag and how preparers fix it. This is close to the "decision-making patterns" buyers name.
Your own manuals, onboarding guides and internal memos on procedure, written by your staff.
Scheduling, workload planning, engagement intake steps and the firm's own books, as distinct from clients' books.
Three buyer programs publish rules a firm can check itself. The accounting-specific line is Mode's.
| Program | Published company payout | Published eligibility | What it means for an accounting firm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | "$100K-$5M" | 20+ full-time US office employees in general; accounting firms 10+; several years of records the company owns; US-based teams the strongest fit | A US firm with 10 or more staff meets the published size line. The word "owns" matters: client records are not simply yours. |
| micro1 | "$100K-$2M+ for approved data packages" | 30+ employees (its referral posting says 30 to 200), mature operations, documented processes, modern software tools, primarily English, US prioritized, then other Western markets | Firms under 30 people do not meet the published minimum. Larger firms with written procedures fit the profile it describes. |
| Grepped | "$20K-$5M" | Any vertical; also pays individual professionals for expertise | No published size line. A partner's own expertise may be a separate route, as Grepped describes it. |
Last checked: 7 October 2026. Sources: data.mode.inc, micro1.ai/data-partnerships and micro1.ai/company-referral, grepped.ai, each as published on that date. Payout figures are the buyers' published ranges, not offers or averages.
Two things in this table are easy to misread. First, a published range is a range across all the companies a buyer deals with. It says nothing about where a 12-person practice would land, and "up to" figures describe the top of the market, not the middle. Second, meeting a size rule only gets a firm through the first filter. Every buyer then reviews what the data actually is, whether the firm has the right to license it, and how much of it survives de-identification.
Geography matters too: Mode and micro1 both put US teams first. For a quick read on your own numbers, the eligibility checker applies these published rules in your browser and stores nothing.
Client confidentiality is the gate. Most of what a firm holds belongs, in a practical sense, to its clients.
The gray zone is the firm's own email and chat. Staff discuss client work in the same threads where they discuss procedure, and a client's name or a dollar amount can sit two lines away from a useful explanation of why a reconciliation was done a certain way. Buyers say they de-identify: micro1's page says sensitive and confidential information is scrubbed and that no customer information is exposed, and Mode says it de-identifies before onward delivery. Your obligations to clients do not move to the buyer when you sign, though. Narrowing the scope before export is safer than relying on scrubbing after it. Our guide to de-identification before selling data covers what to verify, and client confidentiality and data sales covers the rules shared by firms that hold client secrets.
For the mechanics of finance system exports, such as what a close or an approval chain looks like as data, see accounting and finance records. For the parts that are usually easiest, see documents, SOPs and knowledge bases.
Accounting firms sit under several overlapping rules. None of them is written with AI data sales in mind, so the answer for your firm depends on facts only your lawyer can weigh. The rules to raise by name:
Questions to bring: Does any of the proposed scope count as tax return information? Do our engagement letters allow use of client material for anything beyond the engagement? Is de-identified material still restricted? What would we have to warrant to the buyer about consent?
General information, not legal advice. Talk to your own lawyer before you sign.
The firm, the numbers and the decisions below are invented to show the method.
Example Accounting LLP is a made-up firm with 16 full-time staff in one US office. It does bookkeeping, tax preparation and some advisory work. It keeps its own books in QuickBooks, uses Xero for many client files, stores documents in SharePoint, runs email on Outlook and chats in Microsoft Teams. It has nine years of history in these systems.
Published rules against its facts. Mode lists 10+ employees for accounting firms, so 16 staff meets that line. micro1 lists 30+ employees, so the firm does not meet micro1's published minimum. Grepped lists any vertical with no published size line. None of this is a promise of acceptance by anyone.
| Item | Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| SOP library and close checklists (about 140 documents) | In | Written by staff, no client content once two appendices are removed. |
| Internal Teams channel on procedures | In, after review | Client names replaced with consistent placeholders; dollar figures removed. |
| Reviewer comment logs from the firm's own QA tool | In, after review | Shows errors and fixes; any line naming a client or amount is dropped. |
| Client Xero and QuickBooks files | Out | Client records, not the firm's; engagement letters do not allow it. |
| Tax return files and preparer notes | Out | Tax return information; lawyer advised against including it. |
| Partner email | Out | Too mixed with client matters to scope safely. |
The result is a smaller package than the firm first imagined, built from what it wrote itself. That is the typical shape for a professional firm. The firm would share a short manifest and a few redacted samples first, apply to more than one program, and compare any offers on terms as well as price.
Each firm below is invented. Together they show how the published rules and the confidentiality gate play out at different sizes. Illustrative, not an offer.
At this size the firm-written material is thin: a procedures binder, a few close checklists and a shared inbox. Most of the history sits in client files, which stay out. The realistic package is small, and a buyer may say it is too small.
The hidden cost is the owner's time. Scoping, review and redaction fall on the same two or three people who run the practice, often during busy season.
A firm this size usually has a written quality control manual, layered review and a training program. That is close to what buyers name: SOPs, QA processes and decision-making patterns.
Audit files are the obstacle. They are client records with their own retention and confidentiality duties. The workable scope is the QC manual, review-note patterns with clients removed, and internal process channels.
Scale brings more documented process and more systems, but also more people who must agree: managing partners, counsel, IT and risk. Internal sign-off can take longer than the buyer's own review.
Larger firms also tend to carry more negotiated client contracts, so the exclusion list grows with the client list.
Even a scope with no client files in it can raise questions from clients. Decide how you will answer before you sign.
Clients choose an accountant partly for discretion. A client who hears that their firm "sold data to an AI company" may assume their own returns were in it, whatever the scope says. The legal question and the relationship question are separate, and a firm may decide the second matters more.
There are three broad options. The first is to say nothing, on the basis that no client material is involved. The second is to tell clients in plain words what was and was not included, before they hear it elsewhere. The third is to ask for consent where any client-derived material is in scope. Only the third changes what you may include, and only where your lawyer agrees the consent is valid for this use. Whichever you choose, write down the scope decision and keep it with the agreement, so you can answer a client precisely later.
Treating "de-identified" as "permitted." Removing names does not by itself answer whether client information may be used at all. Confirm with counsel first.
Exporting first, scoping later. A full mailbox or SharePoint export contains client files you never meant to share. Narrow the scope before anything leaves your systems.
Forgetting staff data. The firm's own payroll and HR records in QuickBooks or Paychex describe your employees. Treat them like any other personal data.
Sending the full set before price. Practitioners advise a manifest and samples first, then more than one offer, compared on terms as well as amount.
Generic questions for every seller, weighted to what matters most for a firm that holds client financial information.
Client confidentiality. Does the agreement ask you to confirm that nothing in scope breaches a duty to a client? Can you give that confirmation honestly?
Consent representations. What do you warrant about employee and client consent, and is that warranty limited to what you actually know?
Indemnities. Who pays if de-identification misses a client name? Is your liability capped, and does it expire?
Scope of use. Training only, or evaluation too? Which downstream buyers can receive the data?
Exclusivity and resale. Is the license exclusive, time-limited or open? Can the buyer resell the dataset?
Audit and deletion. Can you check the de-identification? When are originals and the copy deleted, and what survives termination?
Practitioners cite 60 to 90 days from first contact to close, through NDA, review, agreement, export, de-identification and acceptance. Plan for weeks to months.
Independent site. Some links are referral links: if your company signs with a buyer through them, the buyer may pay us a fee. You are not charged, and we never see your data.
We are not a partner, agent or representative of any buyer, and we cannot promise acceptance, amounts or timing. The buyer runs discovery, contracts, export, de-identification and payment. Read the side-by-side terms on buyer programs compared before you choose.Mode publishes a minimum of 10+ employees for accounting firms, lower than its general rule of 20+ full-time US office employees. micro1 publishes 30+ employees. Grepped says it works with any vertical. All as published, checked 7 October 2026.
Treat them as out of scope unless your lawyer confirms otherwise and you have the consents the law and your engagement letters require. Tax return information has its own federal rule, Internal Revenue Code section 7216, and professional rules on confidential client information also apply.
The way the work gets done: close checklists, reconciliation procedures, review notes, approval chains, SOPs and training material. micro1 lists SOPs, knowledge bases, project histories, QA processes and decision-making patterns among what it wants.
Nobody can say without seeing the data. Buyers publish company ranges, not industry prices: Mode lists $100K-$5M, micro1 lists $100K-$2M+ for approved data packages, Grepped lists $20K-$5M. These are published ranges, not offers.
Mode says it buys an agreed copy and originals stay with the company. micro1 says the company keeps ownership of its underlying data and originals are deleted after processing. Check the exact wording in any agreement you are offered.
Whether the law or your engagement letters require notice or consent is a question for your lawyer. Many firms will want to tell clients anyway when anything client-derived is in scope. Decide before you sign and keep a written record of what was included.
micro1's data partnership page lists 30+ employees, and its referral posting describes 30 to 200. A firm at or above 200 should read the current terms and ask during application. As published, checked 7 October 2026.