Cross-framework research
GAAP Compare
Two frameworks, one fact pattern, side by side. Pick the topic and the jurisdiction, describe what actually happened, and get the IFRS requirement next to the local GAAP requirement, with the part that changes your numbers separated from the part that only changes presentation.
Six frameworks, one answerWhy it exists
Knowing both frameworks is not the same as knowing where they part company
It runs in both directions: a UK subsidiary consolidating into a US-listed parent, or a US subsidiary consolidating into a UK or Irish parent. Either way you end up spending real time on the same question: does this difference actually move a number, or is it wording? Most useful for someone who is an expert in one standard but has to report under the other.
A general comparison answers a different question than yours
Most side-by-side guides compare the standards in the abstract. They tell you IFRS 16 has a single lessee model and ASC 842 keeps two. They do not tell you what that does to your particular sale and leaseback with a variable rent.
The differences are unevenly important
Some are cosmetic and some are structural. Confusing the two is expensive in both directions: you either build a conversion adjustment nobody needed, or you miss one the group auditor will find.
UK GAAP is two different answers
FRS 101 is a reduced disclosure IFRS. FRS 102 is a genuinely different recognition and measurement framework. "UK GAAP" on its own is not a usable input, and generic tools treat it as one thing.
Technical libraries cost more than most teams can justify
A full comparison subscription is priced for a Big 4 technical department. Everyone else works from memory, a half-remembered training deck, and whatever comes up in a search.
How it runs
Four steps to a comparison you can use
Pick the topic
Leases, revenue, financial instruments, insurance, impairment, provisions or consolidation. Or name the standard directly.
- 1Choose from the standing topic list
- 2Or type the standard number you are working in
- 3Narrow to the specific paragraph if you already know it
Set the jurisdiction
The comparison changes completely depending on which local framework you mean. FRS 101 and FRS 102 are not interchangeable.
- 1US GAAP, or UK FRS 101, or UK FRS 102
- 2Irish GAAP, Australian AASB, Luxembourg GAAP
- 3The tool applies the framework you picked, not a generic average
Describe the actual transaction
Not the standard, the transaction. Amounts, dates, terms, who has what option. The comparison is only as specific as the facts you give it.
- 1Type the fact pattern, or speak it
- 2Attach the contract, note or schedule
- 3Say which framework you currently report under
Get the difference, ranked
Both requirements, then what the difference does: to recognition, to measurement, to disclosure, and whether it needs a conversion adjustment.
- 1IFRS requirement with the paragraph
- 2Local GAAP requirement with the reference
- 3What the gap does to the numbers, and what it does not
What it looks like
Comparisons that answer the real question
Three shortened examples. The pattern is the useful part: it asks which framework you actually mean, then separates the difference that moves a number from the difference that does not.
Coverage
Where the frameworks actually diverge
Leases
IFRS 16 against ASC 842 and FRS 102 Section 20. One lessee model against two, the sale and leaseback tests, and lease term under a break clause.
Revenue
IFRS 15 against ASC 606. Largely converged on principle, which makes the remaining differences easy to miss: licences, contract costs, and the practical expedients each side allows.
Financial instruments
IFRS 9 against ASC 326 and ASC 815. Expected credit loss against current expected credit loss, and hedge documentation requirements that are not the same.
Impairment
IAS 36 against ASC 350 and ASC 360. One-step against two-step, cash generating unit against reporting unit, and whether a reversal is ever permitted.
Consolidation and groups
IFRS 10, 11 and 12 against ASC 810 and ASC 805. Control, joint arrangements, and the variable interest entity model that has no IFRS equivalent.
UK and Irish GAAP
FRS 101 as reduced disclosure IFRS against FRS 102 as a separate measurement framework, including the FRS 102 periodic review changes on leases and revenue.
Who uses it
For people working in two frameworks at once
It assumes you know your primary framework. The help you need is in the second one, and specifically in where it disagrees with the first.
Group financial controllers
Building the conversion adjustments for a subsidiary that reports on a different basis, and having to defend each one.
Auditors of cross-border groups
Reviewing a component auditor's work performed under a framework that is not your day-to-day one.
Technical and reporting teams
Resolving the differences that surface during close, before they become a note to the group auditor.
Teams mid-transition
Moving from FRS 102 to IFRS, or the other way, and needing to know which policies genuinely have to change.
Deals and integration
Working out what a target's accounting policies do to your reported figures once it is inside your group.
Consultants and contractors
Covering a framework you have not used for two years, without a technical library subscription.
Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Which frameworks can I compare against IFRS?
US GAAP, UK FRS 101, UK FRS 102, Irish GAAP, Australian AASB standards and Luxembourg GAAP. The tool applies the specific framework you choose rather than a generic local GAAP.
Why does it ask whether I mean FRS 101 or FRS 102?
Because they give different answers. FRS 101 is IFRS recognition and measurement with reduced disclosure. FRS 102 is a separate measurement framework. Treating UK GAAP as one thing produces a wrong comparison.
Does it tell me whether I need a conversion adjustment?
It separates the differences that change recognition or measurement, which usually do need an adjustment, from the differences that only change presentation or disclosure, which usually do not.
Is it free?
Yes, with no paid tier and no usage cap. A free account exists so your comparisons save to a workspace you can return to.
Can I rely on the references in a working paper?
Treat them as a starting point and verify the paragraph against the standard before it goes in a file. That applies to any tool, and it is the discipline a reviewer will expect from you regardless.
Does it cover the FRS 102 periodic review changes?
Yes, including the revised lease and revenue requirements, which are the changes most likely to affect a comparison you ran under the older version of the standard.
The terms
Free, because a comparison table should not be a subscription
The comparison content itself is not the scarce thing. Applying it to your actual transaction is, and that is what this does.
How much it costs: £0
No paid tier, no per-comparison charge, no jurisdiction locked behind an upgrade.
No usage cap
Run as many comparisons as the close needs, across as many jurisdictions as you report in.
Specific over general
Give it the transaction rather than the topic. A generic question gets you a generic table, which you can already find for free.