FP&A productivity statistics

Where FP&A Time Actually Goes: Productivity Statistics (2026)

Where FP&A Time Actually Goes

Last updated: September 2026

Financial planning runs on human time: gathering data, building the model, cutting new versions, chasing inputs. How much of that time reaches actual analysis, and what stops the rest from getting there, is measured in recurring industry surveys. Below is what the research says, with the primary source for every figure.

For how long the budget itself takes, how fast teams reforecast, and how often the forecast lands, see Financial Forecast Accuracy and Budget Cycle Statistics, which covers those figures with fuller sourcing.

Where FP&A time actually goes

25% of FP&A time is spent on value-added analysis; the other 75% goes to gathering data (42%) and administering processes (33%). From a joint AFP and APQC study of more than 430 FP&A practitioners. It is the original source of the widely repeated "three-quarters of the time is not analysis" figure. (AFP & APQC, "Preparing for the Next Level of Financial Planning and Analysis")

31% of FP&A time goes to high-value work like insight and action, down from 35% in 2024. From the FP&A Trends Survey 2025, based on 459 finance professionals across industries and regions. The share is falling, not rising: the report states that time on high-value activities "dropped to 31% from 35% in 2024". (FP&A Trends Group, 2025 FP&A Trends Survey)

46% of FP&A time goes to data collection and validation. Same 2025 survey. The body of the report gives the series: 53% in 2019, down 7 points to 46% in 2025, "a level little changed from 2024". Note an internal inconsistency worth knowing if you cite this figure: the report's own key-findings summary calls 46% "the highest figure in five years", which its series contradicts. We report the series. Either way, the direction of travel over six years is small. (FP&A Trends Group, 2025 FP&A Trends Survey)

Why the time goes where it goes

5 versions of the budget, at the median, before it is finalized. From APQC's Open Standards Benchmarking dataset: much of the cycle time comes not from calculation but from waiting on inputs and back-and-forth negotiation across those versions. (APQC, via CFO.com)

61% and 60%: the top barriers FP&A teams cite are the reliability of their data (61%) and its accessibility (60%). From AFP's 2025 FP&A Benchmarking Survey on technology and data (362 practitioners, surveyed autumn 2024). Before a model can be analyzed, the numbers have to be found and trusted, which is where much of the time goes. (Association for Financial Professionals, 2025 FP&A Benchmarking Survey)

Sources

Changelog

  • 2026-09: Refreshed the FP&A Trends figure from the 2024 to the 2025 edition, which supersedes it and moves the number the other way: high-value work fell from 35% to 31%, not up. Added the data-collection series (53% in 2019 to 46% in 2025) as a separate figure, and flagged the internal inconsistency between that series and the report's own key-findings summary. The AFP and AFP/APQC figures were re-checked against later editions and remain the most recent on their respective questions.
  • 2026-07 (revision): Narrowed to time allocation. The budget-cycle, reforecasting-speed, forecast-accuracy and rolling-forecast figures moved to Financial Forecast Accuracy and Budget Cycle Statistics, which sources them more fully (sample sizes, fielding dates, excluded figures). Keeping both pages on the same figures would have put two of our own pages on the same queries. Title and keywords realigned on what this page is now alone in covering. URL unchanged.
  • 2026-07: Initial version. Twelve figures across time allocation, budget cycle length, reforecasting speed, forecast accuracy, and data barriers. A widely repeated "22% forecast to ±5% over three years" figure was excluded (no traceable primary source), and vendor "still using Excel" figures were excluded as out of scope (covered under spreadsheet statistics).

Further reading

Compiled by Layerz.

Related reading