Best CMA Data Software in India for Banks and NBFCs in 2026

There is no single best CMA data software, because "CMA software" names two unrelated jobs. Preparer tools build the seven-statement workbook a borrower submits. Lender-side platforms read a submitted pack and test it. Buying the wrong category is the most common and most expensive mistake in this market.

Key facts

• Two markets, one keyword. Desktop suites sold to CA practices (Gen CMA, EasyCMA, CompuCMA) generate the pack. Analysers sold to banks and NBFCs (Perfios, ScoreMe, Probe42, Moody's, YuSight) consume it. Almost no product does both well, and several vendors that appear in the same search results have no overlapping function at all.
• Preparer-tool pricing is public; lender-platform pricing never is. Gen CMA and EasyCMA publish list prices in the low thousands of rupees. Every enterprise platform in this comparison shows a demo request and no price. Treat any blog quoting enterprise CMA-software pricing as unverified.
• No regulator publishes a CMA format. Several vendor and consultant pages describe their output as the "RBI-prescribed CMA forms". RBI prescribes neither a format nor a form numbering. The seven-statement convention descends from the Tandon Working Group's information system, not from a mandated return. A reviewer should confirm no lender-specific circular applies.
• The regulatory clock is why lenders automate. RBI directs that the "Timeline for credit decisions for loans up to ₹25 lakh to units in the MSE borrowers shall not be more than 14 working days" (RBI, Master Direction — Lending to the MSME Sector, RBI/FIDD/2017-2018/56, updated 9 February 2026).
• YuSight reads the underlying financials at 95.2% extraction accuracy, validated against a manual benchmark, and traces every figure to its source document and page. It does not produce a seven-statement CMA workbook for submission, and this comparison says so where that matters.

How this comparison was built

What was compared. Whether the product builds a CMA pack or reads one; which of the seven statements or which analytics it names on its own site; which input formats it accepts; whether pricing is published; whether it claims integration with a loan origination system; and who the buyer is.

Sources. Each vendor's own public product page only. No analyst reports, no review-site summaries, no press releases. Where a claim appears below in quotation marks, it is the vendor's own wording from the page cited.

Date. All pages fetched 28 August 2026. Vendor pages change; re-check before a procurement decision.

What could not be verified. Pricing for every enterprise platform here — none publishes it. Accuracy percentages, customer counts and time-saving claims made by any vendor, including YuSight's own, are self-reported and were not independently tested. Two documents relevant to this comparison returned access errors on the date of research (Karnataka Bank's MSME financing PDF and CRISIL's financial-ratios criteria), so nothing from either is used. Feature absence below means not stated on the page cited — it is not evidence that a capability does not exist. Ask the vendor.

Ordering. Products are grouped by the job they do and, within a group, alphabetically. This is not a ranked list, and YuSight is not placed first.

Why "CMA data software" returns two incompatible product sets

A CA firm in Coimbatore preparing a working capital renewal needs a tool that takes a trial balance and a growth assumption and emits statements 1 through 7 in a bank-acceptable layout. Total spend: a few thousand rupees a year.

A credit team at an NBFC receiving forty such packs a week needs the opposite: something that reads a scanned or locked workbook, re-derives the holding periods, recomputes MPBF rather than accepting it, and reconciles statement 1 to the bureau. Total spend: an enterprise contract.

Both search "CMA data software". The procedural difference between the two jobs is set out in how to prepare CMA data for a bank loan — the preparer builds, the lender tests.

Group 1 — Preparer suites for CA practices

These are Windows desktop products, usually modules inside a larger tax-and-audit suite, sold on annual licence. They are the tools that actually produce most CMA packs reaching Indian banks.

CompuCMA (CompuTax)

Positioned as automating "CMA data preparation and financial analysis". Its page is the most specific about output of the three, naming the operating statement, comparative statement, MPBF statement and fund flow statement, and describing "Auto Preparation of CMA data in operating statement on the basis of % increase in sales" and "Auto Calculation of closing stock on the basis of turnover period" (CompuTax, CompuCMA).

That second feature is worth pausing on. Deriving closing stock from a turnover period is exactly how a projection gets built — and exactly how an unexamined holding period propagates into an inflated limit. The tool is doing what it says; the judgement stays with the preparer.

Best fit: a CA practice that wants statement-level automation and will supply the assumptions itself. Pricing: not stated on the page.

EasyCMA (Electrocom Software)

A module inside the EasyOFFICE suite. Its capability line is "Preparation of CMA Data for multiple years & Calculation of MPBF" plus a set of financial calculators — EMI, interest, present and maturity value, depreciation chart (Electrocom, EASYCMA). The suite page lists installation from ₹3,900 (EasyOffice, CMA software). Whether that price is the CMA module alone or the wider EasyOFFICE suite is not clear from the page.

Beyond MPBF, the vendor page names no individual statement outputs. If the seven-sheet layout your lender expects matters, ask for a sample workbook before licensing.

Best fit: a practice already running EasyOFFICE for tax and audit.

Gen CMA (SAG Infotech)

The most explicit about method: it works on both a "Percentage basis" and a "Ratio basis" and references Tandon and Nair Committee standards, with features listed as "Multiple Years Projections" and "MPBF Calculations and Ratio Analysis" alongside EMI, depreciation and interest calculators (SAG Infotech, Gen CMA).

Its price table shows 2,000 for installation and 500 for updation, with an "Up to 20% Discount" note. The figures appear without a currency symbol on the page; Indian rupees are implied.

Best fit: a practice that wants both Tandon methods computed rather than one hard-coded. Method I and Method II can differ by a material amount on the same borrower — see MPBF calculation explained — so a tool that only computes one is a constraint, not a simplification.

A note on all three: none of these pages claims OCR, document ingestion, bureau reconciliation or API access. They are calculation and layout engines fed by hand. That is the correct design for their buyer.

Group 2 — Web-based CMA generators

JS & Co CMA report tool

A browser-based generator operated by JS & Co, an accounting practice in Hyderabad. It takes "audited P&L, Balance Sheet figures, loan details, and projections" through a guided wizard and produces what the page calls the six CMA forms — Form II operating statement, Form III balance sheet analysis, Form IV current assets and liabilities, Form V MPBF, Form VI funds flow — plus ratio analysis, DSCR and sensitivity testing. Pricing is freemium: a free single-year preview with no login, paid plans stated at ₹299 to ₹1,799 for Excel export and multi-year projections, and a CA-certified report at ₹699 (JS & Co, CMA report tool).

Two honest caveats. The page describes these as "RBI-prescribed" forms; as noted above, RBI prescribes no CMA format, and the Roman-numeral form numbering is convention rather than regulation. And a generator that accepts typed inputs inherits whatever the person typing believed — it cannot tell you that projected creditor days moved 2.6 days in the borrower's favour.

Best fit: a borrower, consultant or small practice needing an occasional pack without an annual licence.

On free CMA generators generally: several exist. Before using one on a live file, check where the data goes, whether the output is editable Excel or a locked PDF, and whether the layout matches the lender's expected column structure. The seven-sheet reference layout is in CMA data format in Excel.

Group 3 — Lender-side document and financial statement analysers

Different buyer, different job. These read what arrives.

Perfios — Financial Statement Analyser and CAM

Perfios lists a Financial Statement Analyser that will "Make faster lending decisions by generating real-time financial statement analysis and valuation reports from audited statements" (Perfios, Document Analysers), alongside a separate CAM product that "Cross-analyses key financial metrics by analyzing multiple data sources like bank, GST, ITR, financial statements, MCA, Bureau, and EPFO" and claims an "80% Reduction in CAM Preparation Time" and "50% Increase in Credit Manager Efficiency" (Perfios, CAM).

Neither page names CMA data, MPBF or working capital gap computation. That does not mean the capability is absent — it means it is not what these pages sell. The multi-source cross-analysis is genuinely the strongest claim in this group for reconciling a borrower's declared numbers against GST and bureau. A fuller comparison sits in Perfios alternatives for credit analysis.

Best fit: volume MSME lenders wanting turnover triangulation across GST, ITR, bureau and banking. Pricing: not published.

Probe42 — MCA-sourced financials

Positioned as a data intelligence layer for banks and NBFCs rather than an analyser of borrower submissions. It supplies "Financial Statements (Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Statements) and Financial Ratios", peer comparison, charges and secured lendings, GST details, litigation and credit ratings, with data drawn from MCA filings (Probe42, Banking).

Its value in a CMA workflow is independent corroboration: the audited numbers a borrower's CA restated into statements 2 and 3 can be checked against what the same company filed with the Registrar. It does not compute MPBF and does not claim to.

Best fit: corroborating a corporate borrower's history and detecting undisclosed charges. Pricing: not published.

ScoreMe — Financial Statement Analyzer

Claims extraction of "300+ Financial data points" and generation of "financial summaries, detailed company profiles, credit ratings, and data on legal suits and borrowing histories", positioned to "digitize financial documents, automate data extraction, and simplify credit assessment" (ScoreMe, Financial Statement Analyzer).

The page does not name CMA, ratio analysis, MPBF or projections. Its adjacent bank statement analyser is the better-known product; that market is covered in best bank statement analyser in India.

Best fit: extraction-first workflows where the lender's own template consumes the data points. Pricing: not published.

Group 4 — Spreading and credit-analysis platforms

Where the extracted numbers become a credit view rather than a data set.

Moody's Lending Suite (CreditLens)

Offers "automated financial spreading" using AI and data feeds to "automatically extract, validate, and map financial data from a plethora of sources", with scoring covering "efficient rating generation" and scenario analysis across base, supervisory and custom cases (Moody's, Spreading and Scoring).

The page names no India-specific templates, no CMA layout and no MPBF computation. For an Indian lender, the question to put to Moody's is whether the spreading template set can be configured to the seven-statement classification and whether the working capital gap can be expressed as a calculated field.

Best fit: large banks standardising spreading across multiple geographies. Pricing: not published.

YuSight

An AI credit decisioning platform that works alongside an existing LOS. Its own site describes it as reading borrower documents, spreading the financials, running the analysis and generating "a fully-cited Credit Assessment Memo", with stated figures of "95.2% extraction accuracy validated vs. manual benchmark", "~30 min to a Credit Memo", "100% Figures cited one-click source verification" and "3× Faster decisioning" (YuSight). These are the vendor's own numbers and were not independently tested here.

Be clear about where CMA sits. YuSight does not generate a seven-statement CMA workbook for a borrower to submit, and buying it for that purpose would be a category error of the kind this article opens with. What it does is treat the CMA pack, the audited financials, the GST returns, the ITR and the bureau report as inputs: Document Intelligence classifies them and maps them to the right entity in a multi-entity structure, Financial Spreading standardises the figures and computes the liquidity, leverage and turnover ratios, and CAM Generation carries them into a memo where every figure is one click from the page it came from.

For a credit team, the relevant test is whether the ratios in statement 7 can be recomputed from the underlying balance sheet rather than read off the borrower's sheet. That is a spreading capability, not a CMA capability. The distinction is drawn out in what is financial spreading.

Best fit: banks and NBFCs whose bottleneck is memo turnaround and citation trail, not workbook production. Pricing: not published.

Group 5 — Origination platforms where CMA is a document, not a module

Worth naming because they surface in the same procurement conversations and are frequently assumed to include CMA analysis.

Lentra lists GoNoGo for origination and 1LMS for management, with claims of "End-to-end decisions in 10 secs" and "90%+ Straight through processing" (Lentra). Neither financial statement spreading nor CMA appears on the page.

Nucleus Software FinnOne Neo Customer Acquisition System covers "Automation of eligibility parameters and third-party integration for qualitative and quantitative analysis" and references "automated credit checks, bank statement analysis and customer identity verifications" (Nucleus Software, FinnOne Neo CAS). CMA and ratio computation are not named.

Both are designed to hold the file and route it. Whether the CMA analysis happens inside the LOS or alongside it is the same question examined in does credit memo automation replace your LOS.

Side-by-side

"Not stated" throughout means absent from the page cited on 28 August 2026, not proven absent from the product.

Nine questions to put to any vendor in this market

1. Show me a seven-statement pack going in and the ratio set coming out — on a scanned PDF, not a clean Excel file.
2. Does the tool recompute MPBF from the current assets and liabilities, or copy the borrower's stated figure?
3. Can it re-derive holding periods from the audited columns and flag those that moved in the borrower's favour?
4. Method I and Method II, or only one?
5. When statement 6's long-term surplus does not reconcile to the movement in net working capital, does anything catch it?
6. What happens to unsecured promoter loans — term liability, current liability, or quasi-equity — and is the treatment configurable per lender policy? It changes TOL/TNW materially.
7. Where does each extracted figure trace back to, and can an examiner follow the trail without the vendor's help?
8. How is the stated accuracy measured — field level or document level, on what document mix, against whose benchmark?
9. What happens on the file the model is not confident about?

Question 8 is the one that separates vendors. Two products quoting the same percentage can be measuring entirely different things, and the vendor-demo discipline in what questions to ask a credit memo automation vendor applies without modification here.

What none of this software does

It does not exercise credit judgement. Every tool above will accept a projection in which receivable days improve while sales grow 25%, and none will tell you that the borrower's largest customer has changed payment terms. It will compute the working capital gap correctly from whatever holding periods it is given.

It also does not remove the reconciliation to statement 1. An existing facility with another lender omitted from the borrower's pack is caught by putting the list beside the CIC report, and no CMA tool in this comparison claims to do that on its own.

Frequently asked questions

Which software prepares CMA data automatically?

The desktop suites sold to CA practices — CompuCMA, EasyCMA and Gen CMA — generate the pack from figures you enter, and web tools like the JS & Co generator do the same in a browser. None of them extracts the figures from a scanned balance sheet; you supply the inputs.

Can CMA data be built from uploaded financial statements?

Not by the preparer tools in this comparison, which take typed or imported figures. Lender-side extraction platforms will read financial statements and pull the data points, but the ones reviewed here do not claim to emit a seven-statement CMA workbook as output.

Does CMA software integrate with an LOS?

The CA-practice suites do not — they are standalone desktop products. Enterprise platforms generally do, but none of the pages reviewed published integration specifications, so treat it as a question for the demo rather than a feature you can assume.

Is there free CMA data software?

There are free web generators, including a no-login single-year preview from the JS & Co tool, with paid tiers for Excel export and multi-year projections. Check where your borrower's data is stored before using any free tool on a live file.

How much does CMA data software cost in India?

Preparer tools publish list prices in the low thousands of rupees — EasyCMA from ₹3,900, Gen CMA at 2,000 for installation. No enterprise platform in this comparison publishes pricing at all, and anyone quoting a figure for one is guessing.

Does RBI prescribe a CMA data format?

No. Several vendor pages describe their output as RBI-prescribed forms, but RBI publishes neither a CMA template nor a form numbering. The layout is an industry convention descended from the Tandon Working Group.

Should a bank buy CMA software or spreading software?

Spreading software, in almost every case. A lender does not need to produce CMA packs; it needs to test the ones it receives, which means extraction, standardisation and recomputation of the ratios from source.

What is the difference between a CMA tool and a bank statement analyser?

A CMA tool works on annual financial statements and projections to size a working capital limit. A bank statement analyser works on transaction-level banking data to test cash flow and behaviour. Most credit teams need both, for different questions.

How should extraction accuracy claims be interpreted?

As a starting question, not an answer. Ask what was measured, on what document mix, against whose benchmark, and whether the figure is field-level or document-level — the same percentage can describe very different performance.

Key takeaways

• Decide which job you are buying for before you shortlist. Preparer suites and lender-side analysers do not compete with each other.
• Preparer tools publish prices; enterprise platforms do not. Any article quoting enterprise CMA pricing has invented it.
• No RBI-prescribed CMA format exists, whatever a product page says. Match the lender's expected layout, not a claimed standard.
• For a lender, the question is never "does it produce CMA data" but "does it recompute the ratios from source, and can an examiner follow the trail".
• Feature absence on a vendor page is not proof of absence in the product. Ask, and ask on a scanned file rather than a clean spreadsheet.
• Nothing here supplies judgement. Every tool will faithfully compute a working capital gap from holding periods that should have been challenged.

For a bank or NBFC, the bottleneck in a CMA file is rarely the workbook. It is getting the numbers out of scans and locked spreadsheets in a form the ratios can be recomputed from, with a trail an auditor can follow. YuSight's Financial Spreading module extracts and standardises the financials at 95.2% extraction accuracy, validated against a manual benchmark, computes the liquidity, leverage, turnover and coverage ratios, and traces every figure back to its source document and page — analyst-editable, so the credit judgement stays with the credit officer.

Watch YuSight spread a real balance sheet.

Sources

All vendor pages fetched 28 August 2026.

• RBI — Master Direction: Lending to the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) Sector, RBI/FIDD/2017-2018/56
• RBI — Master Circular: Management of Advances (UCBs), RBI/2023-24/51
• CompuTax — CompuCMA
• Electrocom — EASYCMA
• EasyOffice — CMA software
• SAG Infotech — Gen CMA
• JS & Co — CMA report tool
• Perfios — Document Analysers
• Perfios — CAM
• Probe42 — Banking
• ScoreMe — Financial Statement Analyzer
• Moody's — Spreading and Scoring
• Lentra
• Nucleus Software — FinnOne Neo Customer Acquisition System
• YuSight