apexanalytix has published its 2026 Global Overpayment Report, drawing on USD $3.25 trillion in corporate spend and more than 400 million invoices.
The study examines overpayment risk in large enterprise accounts payable operations and argues that many payment errors begin outside finance teams. Losses often arise in the gaps between procurement, supply chain, logistics and accounting systems, rather than from failures within accounts payable alone.
Among the largest sources of lost profit identified were duplicate payments, which accounted for 18% of losses. Payments tied to cancelled invoices, contracts, or services accounted for 14%, while pricing discrepancies accounted for 13%.
The report also highlights returned goods and unclaimed rebates. In each case, it points to operational disconnects, such as service cancellations not reflected in central payment systems or goods returns recorded in warehouses but not matched with financial credits.
That pattern matters for large organisations with complex finance structures. Businesses running several enterprise resource planning systems, maintaining multiple supplier records and handling invoices across different channels and geographies face more opportunities for mismatches that standard controls may not detect.
According to the findings, duplicate payments often stem from fragmented supplier data and multi-ERP environments. Pricing discrepancies can arise when negotiated contract terms are not updated in invoicing systems, and unclaimed rebates may be missed because the relevant data is held in separate internal departments.
The report casts doubt on the assumption that mature controls are enough to prevent payment leakage. Many existing checks are designed to catch routine processing errors, but are less effective when losses emerge across business units, supplier accounts, contracts and disconnected systems.
Operational handoffs
The study distinguishes who processes payments and where the underlying problems start. Accounts payable teams may be responsible for making payments, but the triggers for overpayments can begin earlier in procurement and operational workflows or appear after payment has already been made.
Examples include fragmented approvals, supplier record issues and weak visibility across functions. In such cases, the invoice entering the accounts payable process may already contain an error created elsewhere in the organisation.
Phil Beane, President, Global Transaction Compliance Solutions at apexanalytix, said the findings should prompt finance leaders to look beyond the accounts payable function when examining payment leakage.
"AP leaders are responsible for making payments accurately and efficiently, but many overpayments begin in operational handoffs they do not fully own. This report gives leaders a practical way to see where that exposure originates, which common issues deserve attention, and how recovery findings can inform stronger prevention. For AP and Financial Shared Services teams, the value is benchmarking their potential process gaps against peers, knowing where to look and how to recover cash for the business," Beane said.
Scale of exposure
The scope of the dataset gives the report weight among large multinationals, particularly those under pressure to control costs without disrupting supplier relationships. Overpayments can be difficult to identify after the event, especially when transactions span several systems and operational and finance data are not reconciled consistently.
The report presents profit leakage as a structural issue within large enterprises rather than a narrow administrative mistake. That framing suggests that recovery efforts alone may not be enough if the processes that generate errors remain unchanged.
For finance and shared services leaders, the findings also reinforce the limits of measuring control strength only within the accounts payable department. If errors linked to cancellations, returns, contract pricing and rebates begin elsewhere, prevention depends as much on better coordination across functions as on tighter invoice checks.
The report is based on a cross-section of some of the world's largest companies and argues that losses spanning systems and business units rarely correct themselves without targeted review.