What it is
Because Fletchers is a practising firm, an integration built for its own practice reads directly onto the exemption. The developer app lives under Fletchers; ABC's software plugs into it. A future client firm would hold its own exempt app the same way, that per-client pattern is how it scales.
Potential pricing
- Qualifies for the exemption (bespoke integration for own practice), confirmed in Xero's official FAQ. This removes tier fees and egress charges on the accounting-side data, cheap and terms-clean for that half.
- But the exemption is a pricing exemption only, and the practice-management (XPM) half your build leans on carries its own access gates the exemption does not clearly lift. See the examined caveat below, it is the deciding factor for this option.
The XPM caveat, examined
Fresh research on the exemption-versus-XPM interaction, from Xero's own FAQ and specialist integrators. The short version: the exemption is real but narrow, and XPM sits behind three separate gates, only one of which the exemption might touch.
- Gate 1, security assessment (initial and annual). The Xero API Consumer Security Assessment, around 21 questions, is mandatory for XPM. Specialist integrators confirm there are no exemptions, even for internal or single-practice tools. The exemption does not remove this.
- Gate 2, use-case approval. XPM scopes are not self-serve. You submit the XPM API Access Form, Xero reviews it manually, and the scope is granted only on approval, days to weeks, outside your control. The exemption does not remove this either.
- Gate 3, Advanced-tier availability. Xero's FAQ states XPM is "only available starting at the Advanced tier" (AUD $1,445/mo, ~£750/mo, the same Advanced tier as Option A). The exemption is written against "this new pricing model", so whether an exempt app counts as being at Advanced for feature access, or sits outside the tier ladder and is simply blocked, is genuinely unresolved in the public docs. This is the crux.
What it means. If the exemption lifts Gate 3, Option B reaches XPM at effectively no Xero fee and is clearly the best route. If it does not, an exempt Fletchers app may still be pushed onto Advanced to unlock XPM, at which point B's headline cost advantage for the practice-management features disappears and it sits level with Option A. Only Xero can settle this, so it must be asked directly before committing.
Roadmap risk, either way. XPM API v3.0 retires 30 April 2027 (migrate to v3.1), some endpoints (Leads, Purchase Orders, Suppliers) switch off from August 2026, and Xero's announced "Partner Hub" will fold XPM, Xero HQ, Workpapers and Tax into one product, so XPM as a standalone target is moving. Build against v3.1 and keep the XPM data-access layer swappable.
Gotchas
- Dev-account ownership sits with the client, not ABC, your product runs on Fletchers' developer account.
- Connected-party governance, the ABC/Fletchers relationship is already documented as non-arm's-length; putting the Xero app on Fletchers' side adds to that and should be papered.
- It does not centralise into one ABC multi-tenant app.
Limitations
- IP and control friction, ABC's build depends on infrastructure it does not own.
- Every new client repeats the registration and assessment, no single pane of glass across all connections.
Why the score moved from 8 to 7
On first pass this looked like the clearly cheapest, cleanest route. The research narrows that: the exemption is confirmed but covers pricing only, and the XPM half the build depends on is gated independently, with the tier interaction unresolved. So B is excellent if Xero confirms XPM access under the exemption, and merely level with A if not. That contingency, on the exact feature the build needs, is what pulls it back to 7 and puts the written question to Xero on the critical path.