Run on its own, Pace pays a supplier early and your cash leaves early with it. Run through Flow, the same early settlement is funded on card rails, so the supplier is paid ahead of terms, the discount is captured, and your own cash does not move until the card statement falls due. One control point, both levers, pulled together.
Dynamic discounting platforms solve timing. Card and virtual-card programmes solve method. Buy both and you run two stacks, two onboarding processes and two sets of eligibility rules, then coordinate them yourself. Commit to one and you inherit its single answer to every supplier and every month.
Flow and Pace were built to operate from one control layer for exactly this reason. Finance posture is not static: it changes supplier by supplier, at month-end, at year-end. Levers that live in separate systems cannot flex together. These do.
A worked example on a single approved invoice, on standard 60-day end-of-month terms. Illustrative, and every engagement is configured.
The supplier is paid early. Your cash leaves late. The gap is the point.
Pace decides when the supplier is paid. Flow decides how that payment is funded. Neither lever knows or cares what the other is doing, which is why they can be pulled independently, or together like this.
The early-settlement discount lands on the invoice while your own cash stays put until the card statement date. Off balance sheet, no facility drawn, no covenant touched.
They accept or decline invoice by invoice, and receive EFT into the account they already use. No card handling, no receivables assignment, no financier inserted into the relationship.
Eligibility, offer, acceptance, settlement and remittance are traced end to end through a single control layer, because it is a single control layer.
Running both levers on the same invoice makes sense where the supplier genuinely values early cash and the working-capital position rewards funding it on rails. That is a segment, not a supply chain.
Plenty of invoices are better served by one lever alone, or by neither. The eligibility rules are yours, and they can differ by supplier, entity, currency and month.
Every guardrail that governs the levers separately still governs them together.
A blended settlement only happens where the supplier has accepted a Pace offer. Declining changes nothing. The invoice pays on its original terms.
Blending is applied where your rules say so, not across the base. Different suppliers, different segments, different answers.
Turn the funding side off and Pace still works. Turn the timing side off and Flow still works. Neither depends on the other.
Both levers operate after approval. No pre-approval funding, no assumption about invoice validity.
No facility, no covenant, no underwriting of the supplier. The card programme is your existing one.
Offer, acceptance, funding method, settlement and remittance sit in a single record per invoice.
Want to see the two levers side by side against the rest of the market? Read the alternatives view →
Switch both levers on in the calculator and the three lenses move together: working capital, DPO and EBITDA from the same control point.
