ROI Analysis: Manual vs Automated Processes
Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of automation adoption
Published on May 11, 2025
In this internal test, we asked three seasoned analysts (alias) — Emily, David, and Jason — to independently underwrite two multifamily deals. Each analyst completed the tasks twice: (1) Manual process (Excel) and (2) AXiM-powered process. The objective was to measure time efficiency, accuracy confidence, and stress points across the two approaches.
Deal Profiles
Deal A — "Elmwood" A straightforward acquisition of a 200-unit multifamily property. The deal involved senior debt, standard refi assumptions in year 4, and single GP/LP structure.
Deal B — "Riverview Residences" A complex structure: 450 units, 2 LP structures with different hurdle rates, 2 GPs, and a junior debt tranche that begins in year 2 with a rate cap. The model also included refinancing in year 3.
Time Comparison Results
The following table shows the average time spent by all three analysts across both deals:
| Task | Manual Underwriting | AXiM Underwriting |
|---|---|---|
| Deal A (simple) | ||
| Data Cleaning | 1.0 hrs | <0.1 hrs |
| Financial Modeling | 5.0 hrs | 0.3 hrs |
| Sensitivity Analysis | 0.5 hrs | <0.1 hrs |
| Reporting | Not tested | Not tested |
| Deal B (complex) | ||
| Data Cleaning | 2.0 hrs | <0.1 hrs |
| Financial Modeling | 8.5 hrs | 1.0 hrs |
| Sensitivity Analysis | 2.0 hrs | <0.1 hrs |
| Reporting | Not tested | Not tested |
Note: All analysts independently produced models with these times averaged across the three participants.
Key Observations
- Data cleaning was cited as the most tedious task in the manual process, particularly for Deal B, where rent rolls and T12s were in non-standard formats. With AXiM's NLP-powered document ingestion, the files were standardized within minutes, with no manual mapping of line items required.
- Modeling complexity showed the largest time gap. Deal B's layered structure was described as "nerve-wracking" by Emily during manual underwriting, requiring dozens of linked tabs and constant error-checking. With AXiM, GPs, LPs, debt layers, and refinance logic were all inputted via guided assumptions in a fraction of the time.
- Sensitivity analysis was smoother in AXiM. Instead of building multiple sheets and tables manually, analysts ran multi-variable tests in parallel, a feature they highlighted as a major stress-reducer.
Analyst Feedback
All three analysts reported significant reductions in time and errors using AXiM, especially on the complex Deal B.
"I could actually focus on the strategy instead of debugging formulas," said Jason.
"AXiM removed the grunt work. I wouldn't go back," added David.
While reporting was not part of this time trial, all agreed that AXiM's auto-reporting capabilities would likely deliver further time savings.
TL;DR
AXiM reduced underwriting time by 88% on complex deals, transforming an 8.5-hour task into just 1 hour. When seasoned analysts unanimously declare they "wouldn't go back" to manual Excel processes, you know automation has fundamentally changed the game.