Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Sign in
Get a Demo
Talk with an accountant.
Understand input method vs output method for revenue recognition, including key differences, practical examples, and tips for choosing the right approach.
The way you recognize revenue tells a story about your company's performance. For contracts fulfilled over time, the plot of that story is shaped by your choice between the input and output methods. This decision is at the heart of compliant revenue recognition. The central question in the input method vs output method choice is this: Does your effort or your result better represent the value you're delivering to the customer? One isn't inherently better than the other, but one is almost always a better fit for a specific contract. Making the wrong call can distort your financial picture and cause headaches during an audit. In this article, we'll explore the practical differences to help you choose confidently and tell an accurate financial story.
When you fulfill a contract over time, you need a reliable way to measure your progress. This is essential for recognizing revenue accurately in each accounting period. The two primary approaches for this are the input method and the output method. Think of them as two different lenses to view how much of a job is complete. One looks at the effort you’ve put in, while the other looks at the results the customer has received. Choosing the right one depends entirely on which method best reflects the transfer of value to your customer.
The input method measures progress based on the efforts you've expended or the resources you've consumed to fulfill the contract. It’s all about what you’re putting in to the project. Common examples of inputs include labor hours worked, costs incurred, or the amount of materials used.
To use this method, you first estimate the total inputs required to complete the entire project. Then, you recognize revenue in proportion to the inputs you've used to date. For instance, if you’ve completed 400 of a project’s estimated 1,000 labor hours, you would recognize 40% of the total contract revenue. This approach is often used when there isn't a direct link between effort and tangible results, or when milestones are hard to define.
The output method, on the other hand, measures progress based on the value transferred to the customer. Instead of looking at your effort, it focuses on the tangible results or the goods and services the customer has already received. This is about what the customer is getting out of the deal.
Examples of outputs include units produced or delivered, milestones completed, or miles of road paved. To apply this method, you compare the results achieved to date with the total expected results of the contract. If a contract is for building five identical houses and you’ve completed two, you can recognize 40% of the revenue. This method is a great fit when performance obligations have clear, distinct, and measurable outcomes.
Both ASC 606 and IFRS 15 allow for the use of input and output methods. The standards don't prescribe one over the other; instead, they require you to choose the one that most faithfully depicts the transfer of control of goods or services to the customer. The goal is to provide a true representation of your performance on the contract.
Your choice isn't about convenience—it's about accuracy. You need to analyze each performance obligation to determine whether effort (input) or results (output) is the better indicator of progress. This decision is critical for compliance and ensures your financial statements accurately reflect the value you've delivered in any given period.
At their core, both methods are designed to help you recognize revenue over time, but they look at progress from completely different angles. One focuses on the work you put in, while the other focuses on what the customer gets out. Understanding how each one measures progress is the first step in figuring out which is the right fit for your contracts and your business.
The input method recognizes revenue based on the efforts or resources you use to fulfill your side of the deal. Think of it as measuring the work going in. This approach ties revenue directly to the costs incurred, labor hours spent, or materials consumed. Essentially, you’re recognizing revenue in proportion to the work you’ve completed.
For example, if a consulting project is expected to take 100 hours, and you’ve already logged 25 hours, you would recognize 25% of the total contract revenue. This method is often used in long-term construction or professional services contracts where your efforts and materials are a direct and faithful indicator of the value being transferred to the customer over time.
The output method measures progress based on the value delivered to the customer. Instead of looking at your efforts, this method focuses on the results or tangible goods and services the customer has received. It answers the question, "What has the customer actually gotten from us so far?"
Common ways to measure progress with the output method include hitting specific project milestones, delivering a certain number of units, or completing distinct phases of a contract. For a software company, this might mean recognizing revenue as each new feature module is completed and delivered. This approach is often more straightforward because it’s based on observable outcomes, making it a clear indicator of the value transferred.
Your choice between these two methods isn't just a matter of preference; it can dramatically change when revenue appears on your financial statements. Imagine a project where you spend a lot on materials upfront (input), but the first deliverable (output) isn't for another few months. The input method would allow you to recognize revenue early on as you incur those costs. The output method, however, would show zero revenue until that first milestone is officially hit.
ASC 606 requires that the method you choose accurately depicts the transfer of goods or services. If you can't reasonably measure your progress toward satisfying a performance obligation, you may only be able to recognize revenue equal to the costs you've incurred until you can.
Choosing between the input and output methods isn't about picking the easier one; it's about selecting the one that most faithfully represents how you transfer value to your customer. The input method is the right choice when your progress is best measured by the effort you expend—like costs, labor hours, or machine time—rather than by distinct deliverables. This approach is particularly useful for long-term projects or services where the final output isn't easily divisible into milestones.
Think of it this way: if you're building a custom piece of software from scratch, it’s often more practical to recognize revenue based on the developer hours logged than to wait for specific features to be completed. The input method shines when the connection between your efforts and the satisfaction of your performance obligation is direct and clear. In the following sections, we’ll look at the specific contracts, industries, and practical considerations that make the input method the most logical and compliant choice for your business.
The input method is your best bet for contracts where the final deliverable is intangible or difficult to quantify. It’s often used when it's hard to see or measure the actual outputs, which is common in many service-based agreements. For example, consider long-term consulting engagements, complex research and development projects, or architectural design services. In these scenarios, the value is delivered continuously through expertise and labor, not in neat, measurable packages. The input method allows you to recognize revenue in a way that reflects the ongoing effort and resources you’re dedicating to fulfilling your contractual promise to the customer.
Certain industries naturally lean toward the input method because of the nature of their work. Professional services firms—like law, accounting, and management consulting—are prime examples. This method works best when the resources you use directly show how much work you've done, such as in a consulting job that charges by the hour. The same logic applies to many construction projects where revenue is recognized based on costs incurred to date. The critical factor is a direct correlation between the inputs (e.g., labor hours, materials consumed) and the progress made in transferring control of the asset or service to the customer.
Sometimes, the decision comes down to practicality. Input methods can be used if they are cheaper to apply and still give a good idea of progress. However, this convenience comes with a major caution: you must ensure your inputs accurately reflect progress. This method might not show the true picture if there are significant inefficiencies. For instance, wasted materials or labor hours spent on rework don't contribute to fulfilling the performance obligation. You must exclude any inputs that don't represent real progress in transferring value to the customer to maintain compliance and present an accurate financial picture.
While the input method focuses on the effort you put into a project, the output method shifts the focus to what your customer actually receives. Think of it as measuring results, not resources. This approach directly ties revenue recognition to the value you deliver, which can be a more intuitive and accurate reflection of your progress in fulfilling a contract. If your projects have distinct deliverables or clear completion points, the output method is often the most logical choice for staying compliant and presenting a clear financial picture.
The output method shines when a project is broken down into clear, observable milestones. If you can point to specific deliverables and say, "This part is complete," you have a strong case for using this approach. For example, a construction company completing the foundation of a building or a software firm delivering a specific functional module has achieved a tangible milestone. According to accounting guidance, output methods are often the best way to show how much value has been transferred to the customer. This method works because each completed milestone represents a distinct piece of value the customer now controls, making it a straightforward way to measure progress toward satisfying the full performance obligation.
At its core, the output method is all about the customer's perspective. It measures the results you’ve achieved or the value you’ve already provided, rather than the hours you’ve worked or the materials you’ve used. Imagine you’re building a custom piece of furniture. Your customer cares about the finished product, not how many hours you spent sanding it. The output method aligns your revenue recognition with this reality. By focusing on the value transferred—like units produced, chapters written, or features deployed—you create a direct link between your performance and the revenue you record. This makes your financial statements easier for stakeholders to understand because they reflect the actual progress of your deliverables.
For the output method to work effectively, your performance obligations should have certain traits. This method is best suited for contracts where you can directly measure the value of the goods or services already given to the customer compared to what’s left to deliver. A classic example is a contract to deliver 1,000 units of a product over a year. After delivering 250 units, you can confidently recognize 25% of the revenue. This works because each unit has a standalone value. The key is that the output is easily quantifiable and represents a faithful depiction of progress. When performance obligations are distinct and uniform, the output method provides a clear and defensible way to handle ASC 606 compliance.
Choosing between the input and output methods isn't just an accounting detail—it's a strategic decision that shapes how your financial story is told. Each approach has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and the right choice depends entirely on the nature of your contracts and performance obligations. Understanding these nuances is key to ensuring your financial statements accurately reflect the value you deliver to your customers over time. Let's break down the pros and cons so you can feel confident in your approach.
The biggest advantage of the input method is its practicality. It recognizes revenue based on the effort you put in, like labor hours or costs incurred. This can be much simpler to track, especially for long-term projects where defining distinct deliverables is tricky. If you can easily measure your team's time or the materials used, this method offers a straightforward way to show progress.
However, the main drawback is that effort doesn't always equal value delivered. You could spend a lot of time and resources inefficiently without creating much for the customer. The input method might not capture this, potentially overstating revenue in early stages. You have to be careful to exclude any costs that don't actually contribute to progress, which requires careful judgment and solid internal controls.
The output method is often considered the gold standard because it directly measures the value transferred to the customer. By recognizing revenue based on completed milestones, units delivered, or other tangible results, your financial reports provide a truer picture of your performance. This approach aligns perfectly with the core principle of revenue recognition: recognizing revenue when control of a good or service passes to the customer. It gives stakeholders a clear and intuitive understanding of your progress.
The challenge with the output method lies in measurement. For some projects, defining and valuing distinct outputs can be complex. If milestones are not clearly defined in the contract or if the value of each deliverable is subjective, applying this method consistently can be difficult. It requires clear performance obligations to work effectively.
The method you choose directly affects the timing of your revenue recognition, which can significantly alter your financial statements from one period to the next. An input method might show smoother, more consistent revenue over a project's life, while an output method could result in lumpier revenue tied to specific milestones. This choice influences key metrics like profitability and growth, impacting everything from investor perceptions to loan covenants.
Ultimately, ASC 606 requires you to select the method that most faithfully depicts the transfer of goods or services. If you can't reasonably measure your progress using either method, you may only be able to recognize revenue up to the costs you've incurred until a clearer picture emerges. This makes choosing and consistently applying the right method critical for accurate and compliant financial reporting.
Choosing between the input and output methods is a critical first step, but the real work begins during implementation. Even with a clear understanding of ASC 606, companies often run into a few common roadblocks that can complicate their revenue recognition process. Getting ahead of these challenges is key to maintaining accurate financials and staying compliant. Let's walk through the three biggest hurdles you're likely to face and how to prepare for them.
The method you choose directly impacts when you recognize revenue, which can create significant discrepancies in financial reporting if not managed carefully. For instance, if you use the input method based on hours worked, you need a foolproof system for tracking every minute. If you use the output method based on milestones, you need objective, verifiable proof that each milestone was met. Without precise tracking, your revenue figures can become unreliable, making it difficult to get a clear picture of your company’s performance. This isn't just an internal issue; it can affect everything from investor confidence to loan applications.
When it’s time for an audit, your documentation is your first line of defense. Auditors will want to see not only what method you chose but why you chose it and how you apply it consistently. Your disclosure statements need to clearly communicate your approach to provide a full picture of your financial health. Inconsistent or incomplete records can raise red flags and lead to serious compliance problems. Think of your documentation as the story of your revenue. It needs to be clear, logical, and backed by evidence to satisfy auditors and give stakeholders confidence in your numbers. You can find more insights on financial operations on our blog.
Consistency is non-negotiable in revenue recognition. Once you decide on a method for a specific type of performance obligation, you must apply it to all similar contracts. Switching between methods for comparable agreements can make your financial statements confusing and difficult to compare over time. More importantly, it can look like an attempt to manipulate earnings. This is especially challenging for businesses with a high volume of varied contracts. Establishing a clear, documented policy is essential, but enforcing it requires robust systems. Having a centralized platform that integrates with your CRM and ERP helps ensure everyone follows the same rules, every time.
Choosing between the input and output method is a significant accounting decision, but your work doesn’t stop there. The next step is to clearly communicate your choice—and its implications—to your stakeholders. Investors, lenders, and board members need to understand how you recognize revenue to accurately gauge your company’s financial health. Being proactive and transparent about your methodology builds trust and shows that you have a firm handle on your financial reporting. It’s about telling the story behind the numbers in a way that is clear, consistent, and compliant.
Your financial disclosure statements are the official record of your accounting practices. When it comes to revenue recognition, they need to be crystal clear. Start by explicitly stating which method—input or output—you use for different types of contracts or performance obligations. Explain the significant judgments you made in applying the method, such as how you measure progress or determine the value delivered. Providing this context helps stakeholders gain a complete understanding of your financial performance. The goal is to leave no room for ambiguity, ensuring anyone reading your financials can follow your logic and feel confident in your numbers.
Beyond formal disclosures, it’s smart to educate your stakeholders directly. Not everyone is an accountant, so avoid getting lost in technical jargon. Instead, focus on the "why." Explain why you chose a particular method for a specific contract and how it accurately reflects the way your business delivers value. It’s helpful to anticipate stakeholder expectations and prepare simple, direct answers to their likely questions. Using visuals or real-world examples can make the concepts much easier to grasp. When you make the information accessible, you empower your stakeholders to make better-informed decisions.
Financial transparency is all about building confidence. Consistent application of your chosen revenue recognition method is fundamental to this. When stakeholders see that you follow clear revenue recognition rules, they can more easily compare your performance to previous periods and to other companies in your industry. This consistency provides a stable foundation for financial analysis and forecasting. Proper revenue recognition isn’t just a compliance task; it’s a key part of how you communicate with investors, lenders, and shareholders. It gives them a clear and accurate picture of your operations, which is the cornerstone of a healthy business relationship.
Choosing between the input and output method is a major step, but the real work begins with implementation. A successful rollout isn't just about picking a method; it's about embedding it into your operations so it’s accurate, consistent, and audit-proof. Getting this right from the start saves you from future headaches, like restating financials or failing an audit. By focusing on clear criteria, a well-prepared team, and regular check-ins, you can build a reliable revenue recognition process that supports your business as it grows.
Before you can recognize a single dollar, you need to define exactly what you’re measuring. Your criteria must directly reflect the transfer of value to your customer. Whether you choose the input or output method, the key is to select a measure that faithfully represents your progress toward completing the performance obligation. For an input method, this could be costs incurred or labor hours. For an output method, it might be units delivered or milestones achieved. Document these criteria clearly and apply them consistently to similar contracts to ensure your revenue recognition over time is both logical and defensible.
Your team is your first line of defense for accurate financial reporting. Make sure your accounting and finance staff understand ASC 606 and how to apply your chosen measurement method consistently. But training alone isn't enough if they’re wrestling with clunky, disconnected systems. Manual data entry and spreadsheet management are recipes for error. This is where technology becomes a critical partner. By implementing seamless integrations between your CRM, ERP, and accounting software, you create a single source of truth. This automates data flow, reduces manual work, and gives your team the reliable information they need to do their jobs effectively.
Revenue recognition is not a "set it and forget it" process. Your contracts and projects are dynamic, and your measurement of progress must be, too. As Deloitte notes, companies need to re-evaluate their progress at the end of each reporting period. Set up a regular cadence—whether monthly or quarterly—to review your progress measures. This allows you to make adjustments for contract modifications, changes in project scope, or unforeseen delays. Consistent monitoring ensures your financial statements remain accurate and compliant with accounting standards. It also helps you identify and address potential issues before they become significant problems during an audit.
Choosing between the input and output methods isn't just about picking the easier option. It’s a strategic decision that needs to align with how your business delivers value. The right choice ensures your financial statements are accurate, compliant, and truly reflect your performance. To make a confident decision, you need a clear process that considers your contracts, your customers, and your long-term financial health. Let's walk through how to build that process.
Start by building a simple framework to guide your choice. The core principle is that the method you pick must accurately show how much work you've done and how much value you've given to the customer. Your framework should be a set of questions you ask for every type of contract. For example: Can we reliably measure the effort we put in (inputs)? Or is it easier to measure the tangible results the customer receives (outputs)? Does one method better represent the transfer of control? Documenting these questions and your answers will create a consistent approach and give you a solid rationale for your decision, which is exactly what auditors want to see. For more on building strong financial processes, check out our insights.
Your customer contracts are your primary source of truth. Before you decide on a method, you need to understand the specifics of your performance obligations. Are you delivering a single service over time or multiple distinct goods? Are there clear milestones or deliverables outlined in the agreement? According to accounting standards, for each job done over time, a company must use one method to measure progress and apply it consistently for similar jobs. Scrutinizing your contracts will reveal the nature of your promises to customers, which in turn points toward the most appropriate measurement method for ASC 606 & 944 compliance.
Your choice of revenue recognition method isn't just an accounting detail—it has real financial consequences. The choice between input and output methods can significantly change when a company records its revenue, affecting everything from cash flow projections to investor communications. You must use good judgment to pick the method that best shows how you transfer control of goods or services to the customer. It’s a good idea to model how each method would impact your revenue streams over a few reporting periods. This foresight helps you understand the story your financials will tell and prepares you for conversations with stakeholders. Seeing these scenarios play out can make your decision much clearer. If you want to see how automation can help with this kind of modeling, you can schedule a demo with our team.
Manually tracking revenue recognition, especially for high-volume businesses, can feel like a constant uphill battle. You’re juggling spreadsheets, cross-referencing contracts, and spending hours on calculations that are prone to human error. This is where automation changes the game. Using software to automate revenue recognition helps apply your rules consistently across every single transaction. It saves an incredible amount of time, reduces costly mistakes, and ensures your business stays aligned with complex accounting standards like ASC 606.
Instead of getting bogged down in the details, your finance team can focus on what really matters: strategic analysis and growth. Automation provides a clear, real-time view of your financial health, turning messy data into actionable insights. It establishes a single source of truth for your revenue, which means you can close your books faster and with more confidence. Think of it as giving your team a powerful tool to handle the repetitive work, so they can apply their expertise to bigger-picture financial strategy. This shift from manual data entry to strategic oversight is fundamental for scaling your business profitably and sustainably.
Choosing between the input and output method requires careful consideration, and your system needs to be flexible enough to handle whichever you select. HubiFi is designed to manage the complexities of both. Our platform automates the complex calculations based on the rules you define, whether you're measuring progress by costs incurred or milestones achieved. While our system does the heavy lifting, we understand the importance of management judgment. Business leaders still need to apply their expertise to contract details, and our platform provides the clear data visibility required to make those informed decisions with confidence. You can find more insights on our approach to these methods on our blog.
Adopting a new tool shouldn't mean disrupting your entire workflow. A major benefit of automation is its ability to connect the dots between your existing platforms. HubiFi offers seamless integrations with the accounting software, ERPs, and CRMs you already rely on, from QuickBooks and NetSuite to Salesforce. This creates a unified data environment where information flows automatically, eliminating manual data transfers and reconciliation headaches. It also makes it easier to update your revenue recognition policies as accounting standards and your business evolve, ensuring your entire tech stack is always on the same page.
Facing an audit can be stressful, but it doesn’t have to be. Automation helps you stay prepared by default. By setting up clear rules and reviews within the system, you ensure that revenue is always recognized correctly and consistently. HubiFi creates a detailed, transparent audit trail for every transaction, showing exactly how and when revenue was recognized. This means when auditors come knocking, you can provide them with clear, accurate, and easily accessible documentation. This level of preparedness not only makes audits smoother but also gives you peace of mind knowing your financials are always compliant. If you want to see how this works, you can schedule a demo with our team.
Is the output method always better since it focuses on customer value? Not necessarily. While the output method is often preferred because it directly measures the value delivered to the customer, it's not always practical. For complex, long-term projects without clear milestones, like research and development, the input method is a more faithful way to show progress. The "better" method is whichever one most accurately reflects how you transfer control of goods or services to your customer for that specific contract.
What happens if I choose the input method and my costs are higher than expected due to mistakes? This is a critical point to manage. Under ASC 606, revenue should only be recognized in proportion to the progress made in satisfying the performance obligation. Costs that result from significant waste or inefficiency, like having to redo work, don't represent progress. You must exclude those specific costs from your calculation to avoid overstating your revenue and ensure your financial reporting is accurate.
Can I use different methods for different parts of the same contract? Yes, you can. If a single contract contains multiple, distinct performance obligations, you should assess each one individually to determine the best method. For example, you might use the output method for delivering a piece of equipment (a clear deliverable) and the input method for the ongoing maintenance services (an effort-based task) included in the same agreement.
How do I choose a method if both seem like they could work? When you're at a crossroads, go back to the core principle: which method provides the most faithful depiction of your performance? Consider which one is more verifiable and less subject to manipulation. If you have clear, observable milestones, the output method is often more defensible. If progress is truly tied to continuous effort, the input method is the logical choice. Documenting your reasoning is key for audit purposes.
Does automating revenue recognition mean I don't have to worry about which method to choose? Automation is a powerful tool, but it doesn't replace your professional judgment. You still need to analyze your contracts and select the appropriate method. Where automation shines is in the implementation. Once you've made your choice, a system like HubiFi can consistently apply the rules, perform the calculations, and maintain a clear audit trail, which saves time and prevents costly human errors.
Former Root, EVP of Finance/Data at multiple FinTech startups
Jason Kyle Berwanger: An accomplished two-time entrepreneur, polyglot in finance, data & tech with 15 years of expertise. Builder, practitioner, leader—pioneering multiple ERP implementations and data solutions. Catalyst behind a 6% gross margin improvement with a sub-90-day IPO at Root insurance, powered by his vision & platform. Having held virtually every role from accountant to finance systems to finance exec, he brings a rare and noteworthy perspective in rethinking the finance tooling landscape.
Meet with an expert in revenue recognition and order-to-cash accounting and automate revenue close.
*Or watch 2 minute demo here.
Power your high-volume business's revenue compliance and reporting needs with one platform.
