For the CMO
Your channels all claim credit. Your CFO believes none of them.
Add up what every attribution tool claims and marketing drove more revenue than the company booked. That arithmetic is why the budget meeting goes badly. SQOR.ai does something narrower and more useful: it puts marketing spend and booked revenue on the same ledger-reconciled basis, computes what moved together, and gives you numbers finance already agrees with.
Last reviewed 5 August 2026
The short answer
Finance-grade marketing measurement, not another attribution model.
Spend by channel and program from your marketing systems, revenue and margin from the ledger finance closes on, both on one reconciled basis. When spend changes and revenue moves, the relationship is computed from your own history rather than asserted by the platform that sold you the ads. What you take to the budget meeting is a set of numbers the CFO's own systems confirm.
This is deliberately not attribution. Attribution models argue about credit. This measures what your company spent and what it booked, and computes which movements travel together, which is the question the budget decision actually turns on.
What changes
Four arguments that end.
01
The revenue number is finance's number
Marketing performance is measured against booked revenue from the ledger, not against a platform's conversion count. The meeting stops relitigating whose number is real.
02
Spend is visible in one place
Channel and program spend from your marketing systems sits beside revenue, margin and pipeline on the same basis, so the full picture is one view rather than five exports.
03
What moves together is computed
When spend shifted and bookings moved, the relationship is computed from your own history. Where the data supports a connection you see it, and where it does not, the platform says so rather than inventing one.
04
Every ad platform's claim gets audited
Each channel reports its own conversions its own way. Held against booked revenue on one basis, the over-claiming becomes visible, which is exactly the discipline a budget defense needs.
The honest scope
What this is, and what it is not.
Marketing measurement fails most often by promising precision it cannot have. The scope here is drawn where the data is solid.
It is the spend-to-books layer
What marketing spent, what the company booked, margin included, on one reconciled basis, continuously. That is the layer between your ad platforms and your CFO that nobody owns today.
It is not a click-path attribution model
It does not claim to know which touch deserves credit for a deal. Where multi-touch models argue about credit, this measures outcomes finance can confirm and computes which movements travel together.
Your marketing stack stays
Ad platforms, marketing automation and the CRM keep running and are read as sources, read-only. Their own reporting remains useful for in-channel optimization; this is the layer above them.
The whole team included
Seats are unlimited, so channel owners defend their line with the same reconciled numbers you take to the board, rather than their platform's version of events.
Why this was not possible before
The measurement gap was a plumbing problem.
Connecting ad spend to booked revenue used to mean a data project: extract from every platform, model it, reconcile it to the ledger, and keep all of it alive as channels and campaigns change. Few marketing teams ever got that layer built, so the platforms graded their own homework by default.
SQOR.ai generates that layer from your own systems. Machine learning computes every figure and reconciles the revenue side to your books, relationships are computed from your history rather than asserted, and the AI that explains the numbers is blocked from inventing them. The plumbing stops being the reason marketing cannot prove its case.
Questions
What marketing leaders ask.
Is this a marketing attribution tool?
No, and that is deliberate. Attribution models distribute credit across touches, and their claims routinely add up to more revenue than the company booked. SQOR measures spend and booked revenue on one ledger-reconciled basis and computes which movements travel together from your own history. It is the finance-grade layer above your channel tools, not a replacement for them.
Can it read our ad platforms and marketing automation?
Yes. Marketing systems connect as sources alongside the CRM, billing and the ledger, read-only. The spend side of the picture comes from them; the revenue and margin side comes from the books, which is what makes the combined view defensible.
Will this tell me which campaign caused which deal?
It will tell you what the data actually supports. Where spend and outcomes move together strongly in your history, that relationship is computed and shown. Where the data cannot separate a campaign's effect, the platform says so rather than manufacturing a credit split. That honesty is what makes the numbers it does give you hold up with finance.
What does it cost?
The subscription is $48,960 a year for 25 users all-in with the data warehouse included, priced on questions asked rather than seats, and set-up is a nominal fee that covers the proof of concept.
How long until we see our own numbers?
Two weeks to your own people testing on your own data, once read-only access is in place. Week one captures the questions your budget and channel reviews actually ask. Week two is ingestion, generation and reconciliation, spend beside booked revenue on one basis.
Walk into the next budget meeting with finance's own numbers.
Bring the channel whose contribution gets disputed. We will put its spend beside booked revenue from your own ledger, on your own data, in the first two weeks.