Easori might find it difficult to break into the market. Netvisor and Fennoa, in particular, have better usability. Furthermore, as noted above: I know that it is precisely because of the Talenom background that many accounting firms avoid the software, and I’m not surprised.
4 Likes
Accounting exists outside of our home country, too. I’m a bit skeptical of the firm stances taken on this forum regarding the superiority of certain software.
Yes, but one could imagine competitors eyeing the same markets as well. Visma is still quite a few times larger than Easor.
In Finland, we are pioneers in many respects, e.g., APIs for Tax Administration systems, compared to some countries where they are still filling out paper forms. If it’s any consolation: I have experience with almost every financial management system in Finland and am still active in the industry. I can therefore claim to know a thing or two about the subject.
2 Likes
I agree, I have experience with this. Accounting firms definitely don’t switch software easily, precisely because onboarding has to be done for both the staff and the clients. A massive task. So, it’s hard for Easor to become a favorite among accounting firms.
Market shares and most popular software for accounting firms (2025–2026):
-
Procountor (Finago): Clear market leader (22%).
-
Asteri: Strong challenger, market share approx. 18%.
-
Fennoa, Netvisor, Visma Fivaldi
-
Other players: For example, Emce, Lemonsoft, and Heeros. Whether Easor falls into this category, no info.
Weren’t there percentages for these?
I would imagine that Easor belongs in the category where software for accounting firms is listed?
What do people think, is Easor already included for free at the current valuation? I’m starting to feel like it is. I wonder if others will be surprised or if I will be by the kind of earnings performance Talenom reaches at the end of the year?
The selling pressure is heavy and surely deserved. If more than half of the dividend is cut, we’ll see what kind of sell-off follows 
Here is a link for everyone to that Tilisanomat study that @Tilihenkilö is discussing:
Summary - How we calculated market shares
In their responses, respondents report:
- Which software they use and
- their estimate of what percentage of their customer base they use each program for.
By combining this information, we obtain the software market share among the respondents’ accounting clients as indicated by this survey. When looking at the figures, the following should be noted:
- This is not a market share in terms of euros in the accounting software market, but a share of the number of end-customer companies of the accountants at the responding accounting firms.
- The survey was aimed only at accounting firms, which is why the market shares do not include companies that handle their own accounting.
- Market shares were calculated for the 13 software products sold to accounting firms included in the survey. Some accounting firms use software they have developed themselves, so in reality, the shares of the software included in the survey of the total market are smaller than presented here.
- The survey does not take into account how many client companies a respondent has. A software used by an accountant to manage many small clients suffers in the survey compared to a software used by an accountant to manage a few large clients.
- For software with smaller market shares, the number of respondents is quite low, so changes in the number of respondents cause distortions in the market share figures.
With these limitations in mind, the market share figures can be summarized as follows:
What is the share of each accounting software aimed at accounting firms out of the number of client companies managed by accounting firms using commercial off-the-shelf software.
I quickly skimmed through the study, and some interesting points emerged from the summary section.
Changes in job roles and descriptions
Key observations:
- Automation and AI have already changed and will continue to change financial management tasks. Routine work is becoming automated, shifting the accountant’s role more toward expert work, consulting, and customer advisory.
- Manual work is decreasing, but the importance of verification, analysis, and exception management is growing. The accountant acts as a supervisor and director of automation.
- The need for controller services and business analysis is increasing. Clients want more reports, cash flow forecasts, and clear graphical visualizations.
- The development of professional skills and expertise is emphasized, especially for new employees. Automation does not replace practical skills but requires an understanding of accounting fundamentals and software exception handling.
- Customer service and interaction are highlighted as routines shift to automation. The accountant’s role is evolving into more of a business partner and advisor.
Software development wishes and challenges
Desired development directions:
- More automation and the utilization of AI, especially in postings, reconciliations, and error detection. There is a hope for AI to be company-specific and capable of learning, rather than just offering general solutions.
- Development of reporting and visualization: Easy-to-read, graphical reports that allow for drilling down to the general ledger level. Customizability of reports and analysis tools are important.
- Ease of use and cost-effectiveness of software: Small businesses and associations need affordable, simple, and easy-to-use software. Software pricing is often perceived as too high.
- Integrations and interfaces: Software should be compatible and allow data transfer between different systems. API interfaces and modularity are desired.
- Cybersecurity and auditability: AI solutions must be transparent and secure; the importance of the audit trail and explainability is emphasized.
- User experience: Less clicking, clear workflows, and personalized views for different roles (accountant, controller, decision-maker).
Challenges and development needs:
- Automation is not yet fully reliable: Automatic account assignments and AI solutions in software still require checking and correction. Better tools are needed for error identification and flagging exceptions.
- Deficiencies in training and orientation: The skills of new employees do not develop sufficiently if they cannot perform practical work and learn step-by-step. There is a fear of losing expertise and a decline in quality.
- Software complexity: Clarity in user interfaces and functions is needed, especially for small entrepreneurs and occasional users.
- Pricing and costs: Software prices are at the limit for small players, which prevents the wider adoption of automation.
At our request, AI also compared the wishes of payroll specialists from last year’s study to those of accountants and summarized the differences in development areas:
- Payroll administration: streamlining practical daily life → integrations, holiday calculation, Collective Labour Agreements (TES).
- Financial management: strategic capabilities → analytics, visualization, automated exception alerts.
At the end, something also came to mind related to Talenom’s press release. This part caught my eye in the release:
The Board of Directors of Talenom has today decided to appoint Antti Aalto as the new CTO of Easor starting March 2, 2026, and subject to the implementation of the Demerger, as a member of Easor’s Management Team starting March 2, 2026.
I wonder if this mentioned Antti Aalto is currently the Head of Product at Swappie? Can anyone confirm?
If so, it would seem like a pretty good recruitment.
This text was written pretty much on the fly.
In general, it will certainly be more productive to discuss these topics once the companies are separated and an investor can choose whether to be involved with both.
6 Likes
I can’t confirm 100%, but in terms of LinkedIn activity, this Antti A from Swappie has liked a few Talenom / Easor posts in recent weeks.
There’s no smoke without fire
5 Likes
It seems that SEB is still selling Talenom at a rate of approximately 500,000 shares per month, having sold about 9,000,000 shares since the beginning of 2022? Could this create downward pressure on the share price?
8 Likes
I can:
The Financial Supervisory Authority has approved the supplement to the prospectus concerning Talenom’s partial demerger and Easor’s listing
Today, February 4, 2026, the Financial Supervisory Authority has approved the supplement to the Finnish-language demerger and listing prospectus (“Prospectus”) concerning the partial demerger (“Demerger”) of Talenom Plc (“Talenom”) and the listing of the new independent company to be established in the Demerger, which will be named Easor Plc (“Easor”).
6 Likes
Having followed Talenom’s stock for a while now with my “buying boots” on, I’ve been puzzled by the prolonged share price decline. Is this a buying opportunity, or is the price steadily heading toward zero over the next 2–3 years? Could those who have followed the company longer shed some light on which key metrics I should primarily be focusing on in Talenom’s case?
3 Likes
It could go steadily towards zero without ever actually reaching it?
This is quite a special case in Talenom’s story, as the software business will soon be spun off. There is selling pressure coming from almost every direction. Many are likely completely fed up with the stock, as July will mark practically five consecutive years of share price decline.
Negative factors explaining the share price decline:
- There is a significant amount of debt
- The dividend will likely be cut drastically
- Sweden has still not been proven
- Easor is a complete mystery as an independent company
- Operational management hasn’t been convincing since Paaso, and not many changes have occurred; the CEO (TJ) will continue in the other company
- The decline feeds the decline; people have anchored to a certain price level, and many are probably cursing that they didn’t exit earlier
- Everyone who has bought since the summer of 2018 is at a loss if dividends are not counted = realizing losses
- Even insider support buys at the €3 level at the end of the year didn’t help at all
- The accounting business was supposed to be stable and safe, yet the global economy hasn’t provided any tailwinds for Finland, and bankruptcies have been seen
Positive things are few and far between, but on the other hand, it only takes one good quarterly report and a clear turnaround in Sweden. I believe the core business and the strong machine are still intact, as long as it can be trimmed back into profitable shape after these difficult years.
17 Likes
I don’t own any, and I’ve kept it as a rule of thumb that there’s time to get in if a turnaround occurs. Soon there will be two options, though, after the demerger.
2 Likes
Did the share issue below make any sense? In my opinion, shares should not have been issued for free; instead, they should have been tied to future performance and granted only if things went well. Things have gone poorly enough that there was absolutely no reason to grant rewards like these.
23 Likes
Fortunately, I’m no longer an owner in this shop. My blood pressure would probably have risen to critical levels reading that.
In practice, they are being rewarded for not managing to drive the firm into bankruptcy. There is hardly any other success worth rewarding when it comes to this outfit.
I still wonder how some people are hanging on to this, right down to Inderes’ model portfolio.
14 Likes
Well, it follows the same “logic” that has been seen in this company all along. There have been attempts to discuss these things on the forum with poor results. The analyst has been making excuses, or messages have been deleted from the thread.
2 Likes
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about, but I remember at least correcting some strange claims regarding (management) option programs. I do always strive to defend the facts. After all, the company’s board decided to terminate those and decided “not to pay compensation to the option holders in accordance with the terms of the option programs.” So nothing came of it, which is clear when you look at the share price and the option terms.
This share-based incentive system is then a different matter, and more on that next.
The rewards related to Talenom’s 2024–2027 share-based incentive scheme certainly don’t feel fair when looking at the share price development. I didn’t quickly find a more detailed breakdown of the basis on which shares are being distributed now, but the earning criteria were as follows: “In the earning period 2024–2025, the reward is based on the growth of the group’s net sales, the development of the operating profit, and the implementation of the company’s strategy.”
Since the revenue growth here hasn’t been anywhere near what was targeted and the development of the operating profit is, to put it mildly, weak, presumably nothing will be paid for those parts. If they are paid, then in my opinion, it is wrong. Regarding the implementation of the company’s strategy, on the other hand, the separation of Easor has practically taken place, and likely, for example, some rewards are tied to this. Presumably, the payments then come from there. They aren’t huge sums, but I don’t know what proportion of the maximum has been given.
My basic philosophy regarding remuneration is that one is happy to share for good progress. That is, in practice, when the owners get richer, one is also happy to make the management richer. Now the owners haven’t gotten richer, so in my opinion, all additional rewards are questionable. One is allowed to criticize them, and there is likely reason to do so.
But then, thinking about it really dispassionately; if the strategy given by the board has been implemented “correctly” and rewards have been agreed upon for it, then it must be paid as agreed. Then the biggest problems are in the strategy and the created incentive system, so perhaps those should be the primary targets of criticism. Additionally, it must be noted that we don’t yet know what will ultimately come of this Easor separation. The market’s opinion is reflected in the share price, but the truth will be known in the coming years.
Summary: I am not defending or supporting additional rewards in the current situation, but I assume that agreements have been followed. If I had designed those programs myself, I would not be satisfied and would set so-called floor conditions in the future. But moving forward, since we can’t go back.
48 Likes
I’m thinking quite a lot about Talenom’s situation. The service business is on a stable and profitable foundation in Finland, it’s growing in Spain—and apparently profitably as well—while the situation in Sweden is then really weak. I’ve also been wondering if the stock might be significantly weighed down now by the fact that investors don’t want to own one of the two businesses (Talenom –> service business vs. Easor –> software business). Personally, I see a significant risk in how Easor will fare in the software industry battles against other players, such as Procountor, Netvisor, and Fennoa. The whole investment case changed completely after this separation news. Could it be that investors are now dumping shares and will then buy one of the companies into their portfolios after the demerger? Hard to say. The market cap is starting to be quite low already, but there is so much damn debt that the enterprise value is still quite high. If you think about that service business, Aallon Group isn’t valued very highly either…
12 Likes