Should Your CPA Firm Use One Vendor for Hosting, Backup, and IT Support?

When deadlines are immovable and systems feel fragile, this is how firms decide what actually lowers risk and what just looks tidy on paper.

If you mapped every system your firm touches in tax season, the picture would probably look messy.

Your tax software may be hosted by one provider, QuickBooks lives somewhere else, email is with Microsoft 365 or Google, your document management sits on a local server, backups are handled by a separate tool, and a local IT consultant ties everything together.

It evolved gradually and it mostly works, until something goes wrong in late February and no one can say for sure whether the issue sits with the host, the internet provider, the backup, or a misconfigured workstation.

For a 1 to 50-person CPA firm, that patchwork of vendors is not just an annoyance. It complicates your ability to meet the FTC Safeguards Rule and IRS Publication 4557, because evidence of encryption, access controls, and backups is scattered across different systems.

It increases your cyber insurance burden, because you have to prove how each vendor protects client data. It also raises your operational risk in the four months that matter most. When staff cannot access Lacerte, UltraTax, CCH Axcess, or QuickBooks during filing deadlines, the true cost is measured in missed billable hours, overtime, write-offs, and strained client relationships, not just “IT time.”

This is why more firms are asking a focused question:

“Should we consolidate hosting, backup, and IT support with one specialized provider that understands accounting, or keep separate vendors for each layer?”

For most CPA firms without in-house IT, using a single provider for infrastructure, backups, security, and day-to-day support is usually safer, easier to govern, and simpler to document, as long as you choose carefully and preserve your exit options.

In this article, we will guide you through how vendor sprawl happens, the real trade-offs between single and multi-vendor models, what to require from any provider you trust with client data, and how bundled offerings such as Verito’s VeritComplete fit into that decision.

How Most CPA Firms End up with Multiple IT Vendors

If you trace how most CPA firms adopted technology, almost no one sat down and designed a clean, unified architecture.

A partner bought a server ten years ago. Someone later added a remote access tool for tax season. QuickBooks hosting came from one provider, document management stayed on premises, email moved to Microsoft 365, and a backup product was added after a scare.

When remote staff and seasonal preparers arrived, a local IT consultant bolted on VPNs, firewalls, and endpoint security. The result is a workable but fragile mix of cloud hosting providers, local infrastructure, and separate IT support arrangements that no single person fully understands.

This kind of vendor sprawl is not just messy. Every hosting provider, backup platform, and IT support vendor has its own contract terms, uptime promises, and security posture.

One may enforce multi-factor authentication; another may not. One may run backups daily; another hourly. When a preparer cannot open UltraTax or CCH Axcess in late March, the cloud host blames the network, the ISP (Internet Service Provider) blames the firewall, and the local IT person blames the application vendor. Meanwhile, partners are watching billable hours disappear.

Regulatory and cybersecurity expectations make this fragmentation harder to defend. The FTC Safeguards Rule treats CPA firms as financial institutions and requires a written information security program with documented controls over how customer information is collected, stored, and protected. IRS Publication 4557 expects tax professionals to implement and document administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for taxpayer data, including secure backups and recovery.

When those safeguards are split across three or four different vendors, it becomes difficult to answer basic questions such as:

• Who is actually responsible for encryption?
• Who tests restores?
• Whose logs would you hand to an auditor after an incident?

Operational and Compliance Costs of Multi-vendor IT

Keeping separate providers for hosting, backup, and IT support looks like diversification, but it often increases day-to-day risk for a 1 to 50-person firm.

The operational hit shows up first. Staff waste time opening tickets with multiple vendors, repeating the same information, and waiting while each provider proves the problem is “not on our side.”

During peak filing months, even an hour of downtime for core systems can be expensive. TruLeap Technologies’ analyses of small and mid-size businesses put typical downtime costs at thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per hour, with some research citing ranges of 8,000 to 25,000 dollars per hour for small companies. That does not include overtime to catch up, write-offs for missed deadlines, or the longer term loss of client trust.

The compliance burden is just as real. To renew cyber insurance or demonstrate alignment with FTC Safeguards or IRS Publication 4557, firms need evidence of risk assessments, access controls, backups, and incident response. In a multi-vendor model, pieces of that evidence live in different portals and ticketing systems, and no one outside the partners and perhaps a single IT champion can see the full picture.

Observability studies on IT outages also highlight “tool sprawl” and siloed data as a major reason organizations struggle to understand where their risks really are, which applies just as much to small CPA firms as to larger enterprises.

Taken together, the operational friction, hidden downtime costs, and scattered compliance responsibilities are the real reasons many firms start reconsidering whether a multi-vendor IT setup still makes sense, especially as tax season workloads grow and regulatory expectations tighten each year.

What a Single IT Provider Should Actually Cover for a CPA Firm

Hosting for Your Core Tax and Accounting Applications

When firms talk about “using one provider,” it can mean anything from hosting a single tax platform to handing over the full environment. For this article, one provider should mean a partner that owns the infrastructure your firm runs on, not just a remote server for one application.

At a minimum, that includes secure cloud hosting for tax software such as Lacerte, UltraTax, Drake, CCH Axcess, and ProSeries, along with QuickBooks Desktop and related tools.

The hosting environment should run on dedicated or logically isolated servers, with segmentation between firms, encryption in transit and at rest, and multi-factor authentication that aligns with your written information security program. Capacity needs to be planned for peak filing season usage, not just quiet months, so staff are not slowed down when workloads spike.

Backup, Retention, and Real Recovery

In a true single provider model, the same organization that hosts your systems is also responsible for backup and recovery. That means:

• Automated backups on a defined schedule
• Retention policies that match your regulatory and business requirements
• Immutable or versioned backups that are resistant to ransomware

The provider should also perform and document regular test restores, because the ability to recover matters more than the number of backup copies on paper.

By contrast, fragmented setups often split responsibility between a server backup tool, a separate endpoint backup product, and an external IT consultant.

In that scenario, no one can state with confidence how long a full restore would take if the firm suffered a major outage in March, or who would actually run the recovery. A single provider with clear recovery objectives removes that uncertainty.

End User and Application Level IT Support

Consolidation only helps if the same provider that runs your environment is also accountable for user support. That should include a 24×7 help desk for day-to-day issues such as password resets, printer problems, and connectivity, as well as deeper troubleshooting for performance or configuration issues inside tax and accounting applications.

For CPA firms, support is only useful if technicians understand the software you rely on and the timing of busy season updates. When staff cannot e-file, print organizers, or roll forward returns, you need someone who can see both the hosting side and the application side. If your host regularly tells you to “contact your IT person,” you are still in a multi-vendor world even if all of your servers sit in one data center.

Security, Compliance, and Reporting Under One Roof

A single IT provider should also own the security and compliance layer for the environment it manages. That typically includes:

• Endpoint protection for workstations and laptops
• Monitored firewalls
• Patch management
• Security monitoring for suspicious activity
• Security awareness training where appropriate

For firms subject to the FTC Safeguards Rule and IRS Publication 4557, the provider should be able to supply documentation and reports that plug straight into your written information security program, cyber insurance applications, and incident response plan.

Governance and Reporting

You should expect regular summaries of:

• Uptime
• Ticket volumes
• Backup status
• Security events

This should be backed by clear service-level agreements(SLA) that define response times, escalation paths, and maintenance windows. At that point, the provider is not just selling hosting or support as a commodity, but taking responsibility for the health, availability, and recoverability of the systems your firm uses to serve clients.

When that responsibility sits in one place, it becomes much easier for a managing partner or operations lead to answer the question that matters most in tax season: who is accountable if something fails.

Benefits of Using One IT Provider for Hosting, Backup, and Support

When everything is working, it is easy to assume that having different vendors for hosting, backups, and IT support gives your firm more flexibility. The real test comes during tax season when staff are working extended hours and clients expect near real-time responses. In that environment, every handoff between vendors introduces delay and every unclear responsibility becomes a risk. Moving to a single specialized provider changes that equation in a few practical ways.

Single Point of Accountability

The biggest benefit is also the simplest. When one provider owns your hosting environment, backup strategy, and user support, there is no debate about who is responsible during an incident.

If a preparer cannot access UltraTax or QuickBooks in March, you are not opening tickets with three companies and hoping they will talk to each other. You call one number, refer to one service level agreement, and expect one team to diagnose and fix the problem.

That clarity matters even more when something serious happens, such as suspected ransomware or unauthorized access to client data.

Instead of trying to coordinate between a hosting vendor, a backup vendor, and a local IT consultant, you work with a single incident response process. For partners, this reduces the mental overhead of managing IT and makes it easier to demonstrate that the firm took reasonable steps to protect client information.

Integrated Performance, Security, and Compliance

Separate vendors usually optimize for their own part of the stack. A cloud host focuses on uptime for virtual servers. A backup provider focuses on job completion. A local IT consultant focuses on workstations and printers. No one is accountable for how all of those pieces work together under regulatory expectations.

A single IT provider can design the environment as a whole.

That means aligning server configuration, network security, endpoint protection, backups, and monitoring around the same controls you document in your written information security program. It is much easier to standardize multi-factor authentication, patching, encryption, and security logging when one team controls the infrastructure and the policies.

From a compliance standpoint, this integration simplifies your response to the FTC Safeguards Rule and IRS Publication 4557. Instead of chasing evidence from three or four portals, you can obtain consolidated reports on access controls, backup status, and security events. That makes cyber insurance renewals and regulatory inquiries less disruptive, because you are not trying to reconstruct your security posture from scattered sources.

Predictable Costs and Simpler Vendor Management

For a 1 to 50-person CPA firm, partners and managers already carry a heavy load during tax season. Managing separate contracts, renewal dates, and pricing models for hosting, backup, and IT support adds more work that rarely translates into better outcomes.

A well-designed single provider model replaces that complexity with one contract, one predictable monthly bill, and one renewal schedule.

Many firms prefer per user or per staff member pricing that bundles hosting, security, backups, and support, because it maps more closely to how the business operates. This can make budgeting easier and reduce surprises, for example when a backup vendor quietly increases storage costs or an IT consultant raises hourly rates during busy season.

The cost conversation is not just about line items, however. Studies of small and mid-size businesses regularly highlight downtime and staff time as major components of IT cost, not just hardware or licenses. When one provider can reduce the number of incidents and the time your staff spend chasing different vendors, the total cost of ownership often looks different from what the invoices alone suggest.

Stronger Support During Tax Season

The period from January through April is where most CPA firms feel the difference between multi-vendor and single provider models.

In a multi-vendor setup, your host might be available, but your backup vendor is not involved in day-to-day issues and your local IT resource can only see part of the picture. Troubleshooting often involves remote sessions with one party at a time and repeated explanations of what is happening.

A single provider that specializes in accounting and tax workloads can tune its support model around tax season realities.

That includes:

• Extended coverage
• Clear escalation paths
• Technicians who are familiar with the behavior of tax and accounting software under load.

When an issue affects multiple staff or a specific process such as e-filing or printing organizers, the provider can see trends across your environment and act faster than a generalist IT resource that supports many different industries.

The result is not the absence of incidents, which no provider can promise, but shorter outages, fewer repeated problems, and less uncertainty about who is working on what. During your peak months, that difference often matters more than marginal differences in price between individual vendors.

Evaluate Your Current Vendor Sprawl

If reading this section brings specific incidents to mind, such as downtime during a filing deadline or confusion about who was responsible for a backup, that is usually a sign that your current multi-vendor model is carrying hidden risk. At this point, it often makes sense to step back and assess your environment as a whole instead of reacting to the next issue.

This is where a focused assessment from a provider that understands CPA firm workloads is useful. Verito, for example, offers a structured review of your hosting, backup, and support arrangements that maps out vendor overlap, single points of failure, and compliance gaps against FTC Safeguards and IRS Publication 4557.

If you want a concrete picture of how consolidating with one provider could look for your firm, this kind of assessment is a practical starting point rather than an abstract exercise.

The Downsides of Relying on One IT Provider (And How To Manage Them)

Using a single provider for hosting, backup, and IT support is not risk-free.

In fact, the objections partners usually raise are valid: what if the provider fails, becomes complacent, or makes it difficult to leave. These are real concerns, especially when client data, regulatory exposure, and tax season revenue are on the line. The key is to understand these risks clearly and address them in the way you structure the relationship, rather than assuming a multi-vendor setup is automatically safer.

1. Vendor Lock-in and Loss of Leverage

The first concern is lock-in. When one provider runs your servers, manages backups, controls your identity and access systems, and provides support, it can feel as if the firm has lost leverage. Partners worry that pricing will creep up, service quality will slip, and changing providers later will be painful.

You cannot eliminate this dynamic entirely, but you can shape it.

Well-written contracts define your data ownership, specify what happens during termination, and require the provider to help with migration within a clear timeframe and at a known cost. You can also insist on standard platforms where practical, such as Windows-based hosting and widely supported backup formats, so another provider or an internal IT team could take over if needed.

Reviewing the relationship annually, rather than letting it run on autopilot, keeps expectations visible on both sides and helps you avoid slow, unnoticed degradation of service.

2. Concentration Risk if the Provider Fails

The second concern is concentration risk. If the provider experiences a major outage, cyber incident, or business disruption, the impact will be broad because hosting, backups, and support are tied together. In a multi-vendor model, partners sometimes assume that spreading services across providers automatically reduces this risk.

What matters in practice is the provider’s resilience, not the number of vendors.

A single provider with strong redundancy, audited controls, and clearly tested disaster recovery can present less risk than three separate vendors with uneven standards. To manage concentration risk, focus on hard questions:

• Where is your data stored
• What certifications or audits exist for those facilities
• What are the documented recovery time and recovery point objectives
• How often are full restore tests performed?

Ask for evidence, not just assurances.

It is also reasonable to ask how the provider itself mitigates business continuity risk. That includes financial stability, geographic redundancy, offsite backups, and incident response capabilities. Providers that specialize in accounting firms and operate at scale usually have more to lose from a prolonged outage than any one client, which can align incentives as long as you have clear visibility into their controls.

3. Complacency and Quality Drift Over Time

The third concern is that a single provider might start strong, then become less responsive once the firm is fully onboarded. This quality drift is a common pattern in IT relationships.

In a multi-vendor world, firms sometimes counter it by threatening to shift pieces of the environment elsewhere.

In a single provider model, the better approach is to build in accountability mechanisms from the beginning. Service-level agreements should define response and resolution targets for different ticket severities, with simple reporting that shows whether those targets were met. 

Regular service reviews give partners a forum to raise issues early, look at trends, and agree on improvements. Some firms also reserve the right to obtain external security assessments or penetration tests that include the hosted environment, with results shared between the firm and the provider.

Internally, it helps to designate a clear owner for the relationship, such as an operations manager or IT champion, who can track user feedback and escalate patterns rather than isolated complaints.

When both sides know that the relationship is measured and reviewed, there is less room for slow decline in service quality.

How to Structure a Single Provider Relationship Safely

If you decide that consolidating makes sense, the contract and onboarding process are where you turn these abstract risks into concrete safeguards. At a minimum, you should expect and negotiate:

• Clear language that the firm owns its data, including configuration data and backups, and that the provider will supply export mechanisms in usable formats if the relationship ends.
• Documented exit procedures covering how long data will be retained after termination, how it will be transferred, and how it will be securely destroyed when no longer needed.
• Service-level agreements that spell out uptime commitments, response and resolution times, maintenance windows, and credits or remedies if the provider consistently misses those targets.
• Transparency on where data resides, what security controls protect it, and how often disaster recovery tests are performed.
• A realistic pilot or phased rollout plan so you can validate performance, support quality, and communication before the entire firm depends on the provider.

Reputable providers that work with many CPA firms, such as Verito and other specialized accounting IT platforms, understand these concerns and typically have mature answers ready. 

The firms that benefit most from a single provider model are those that treat these contractual and governance conversations as mandatory steps.

Single IT Provider vs. Multiple Vendors: Side-by-side

Once you understand what a single IT provider should cover, the natural next question is how it actually compares to keeping separate vendors. On the surface, multi-vendor setups can look safer because you are not “putting all your eggs in one basket.”

In practice, for a 1 to 50-person CPA firm without in-house IT, the trade offs usually show up in coordination effort, risk visibility, and what happens in the middle of tax season when something fails.

When you work with one specialized provider that handles hosting, backup, and IT support, most of the complexity is pushed to their side of the fence. You deal with a single contract, a single service-level agreement, and one team that sees the full environment.

That makes it easier to hold someone accountable for uptime, recovery times, and user experience. With multiple vendors, you keep more theoretical flexibility, but you also assume the responsibility of connecting the dots between services that were never designed to work together.

The table below summarizes the main differences in a way that maps to how CPA firms actually operate:

Aspect	Single IT Provider for Hosting, Backup, and Support	Separate Vendors for Hosting, Backup, and IT Support
Uptime and incident response	One team owns diagnosis and fix, less finger pointing during incidents	Each vendor protects their part, incidents often involve back-and-forth to prove where the fault is
Tax season support experience	Support model tuned to busy season, with technicians who see the full stack	Host, backup vendor, and local IT each see a slice, coordination often falls to firm staff
Compliance and audit readiness	Centralized reporting for safeguards, backups, and access controls that feeds directly into your WISP	Evidence lives in different portals, partners or an internal champion must assemble it manually
Internal coordination effort	One contract, one SLA, one vendor relationship to manage	Multiple contracts, renewals, contacts, and processes to track and reconcile
Total cost of ownership	Predictable per user or per firm pricing that includes hidden items like backups and security tools	Line items may look lower, but staff time, overlapping tools, and downtime are harder to quantify
Cyber insurance and regulatory fit	Easier to demonstrate consistent controls and response processes across the environment	Harder to show that all vendors meet the same standards, more follow-up questions from insurers and regulators
Scalability and firm growth	Provider can scale resources and support as staff count and application footprint grow	Each new application or office often means adding or renegotiating with another vendor
Risk if a vendor fails	Impact is broader, but mitigation is built around tested disaster recovery and clear ownership	Impact of any one vendor can be narrower, but recovery often depends on how well your internal team can coordinate them

For most small and mid-sized CPA firms, the real constraint is not budget or technology. It is management attention.

Partners and managers have limited time to spend on IT architecture, vendor negotiations, and incident coordination. A single provider model accepts a certain level of concentration risk in exchange for clearer accountability, simpler governance, and a support experience that reflects how your firm actually works during tax season.

Multi-vendor setups can work, but only if someone inside the firm is explicitly tasked with designing, documenting, and continually reviewing how all of those services fit together.

When Does It Make Sense To Consolidate IT Vendors?

Not every CPA firm needs to change its IT model immediately.

Some firms run relatively simple environments, have a strong internal IT champion, or already work with vendors that coordinate well.

The firms that benefit most from moving to a single provider for hosting, backup, and IT support usually share a few clear characteristics. If several of these describe your situation, consolidation is not just a technical upgrade. It becomes a risk and governance decision.

Signs Your Current Multi-vendor Model is Under Strain

1. Degrading Performance

One of the clearest indicators is recurring downtime or degraded performance during tax season. If staff regularly experience slow remote sessions, application timeouts, or printing failures in February and March, and each incident requires coordinating between your host, your internet provider, and a local IT resource, the model is already costing the firm money.

When issues are resolved only after multiple vendors prove the problem is “not on their side,” that is a strong signal that accountability is fragmented.

2. Incomplete Security and Backup Measures

Another sign is the difficulty of answering basic questions about security and backups.

Partners and managers should be able to state who is responsible for enforcing multi-factor authentication, how often backups run, how long data is retained, and what your recovery time objectives are.

If the honest answer is that different vendors handle different parts and no one has a complete view, the environment has outgrown the original design. This becomes more serious as cyber insurance applications and FTC Safeguards or IRS Publication 4557 expectations continue to evolve, since they require you to demonstrate a coherent security posture.

3. Inability to Evolve with Firm’s Growth

Growth can also stress a multi-vendor setup.

Firms that expand from 5 to 15 people, add remote preparers, or open a second location often discover that each new staff member or office requires more configuration work across several vendors.

Adding a new application, such as workflow or document management, may involve separate hosting, security, and integration work that no vendor fully owns. When growth projects stall because “we need to see if the host and the IT consultant can make this work together,” consolidation becomes a strategic enabler rather than a purely technical decision.

4. Over-reliance on a Single IT Specialist

Finally, the presence of a single overburdened internal IT champion is a common pattern.

In many CPA firms, an operations manager or partner unofficially becomes the “IT person” responsible for coordinating vendors, chasing tickets, and interpreting technical reports. As demands grow, this role can consume a significant portion of their time, which is rarely what the firm intends.

When that person is also a key biller or business developer, the opportunity cost is substantial.

A Simple Self-assessment for Your Firm

A straightforward way to gauge whether consolidation is worth exploring is to walk through a short set of statements and see how many apply to your firm. You do not need to assign formal scores, but you should pay attention if several resonate strongly.

1. Consider Incident Patterns

In the last two tax seasons, have you experienced more than one outage or serious performance issue where staff could not work for at least an hour, and was the root cause difficult to pinpoint between vendors.

If so, your current IT structure is already affecting revenue and client service, even if you manage to recover each time.

2. Examine Visibility into Security and Backups

If you asked for a single, up-to-date document that describes your backup schedule, retention policies, recovery time objectives, and who owns each control, could someone produce it within a day.

If the answer is no, or if the information is scattered across different vendor portals and emails, your ability to respond to an incident or an audit is weaker than it should be.

3. Look at Governance and Documentation

Do you have a written information security program that reflects how your systems are actually configured today, rather than how they were set up several years ago. Are there regular reviews with your IT vendors where uptime, incidents, and changes are discussed using clear metrics, or is most communication reactive and ticket-driven.

When governance is informal, it is difficult to spot trends or hold anyone accountable for gradual declines in service quality.

4. Think About Staff Experience

When something breaks, do employees know exactly whom to contact and what to expect in terms of response time, or do they hesitate because it is unclear whether to open a ticket with the host, call the local IT person, or escalate to a partner.

Persistent confusion at the user-level often points to fragmented responsibilities behind the scenes.

If several of these themes feel familiar, your firm is a candidate for consolidating IT under a single specialized provider.

This does not mean you must move everything at once or sign a long-term commitment. Many firms start with a phased approach, such as migrating their most critical applications and backups first, validating support quality and performance, and then aligning remaining services over time.

What matters is recognizing that vendor sprawl is no longer just a side effect of growth. It has become a structural risk that needs an intentional strategy.

When Keeping Separate Vendors May Still Be Reasonable

For most 1 to 50-person CPA firms without in-house IT, consolidating hosting, backup, and support with a single specialized provider is the safer, simpler model.

That said, there are cases where a multi-vendor approach can still make sense. The key difference is that these firms treat vendor management as an intentional discipline rather than something that grew organically.

1. Larger Firms With Dedicated Internal IT and Security

Once a firm has its own IT and security staff, the trade-offs change.

An internal team can design an architecture that deliberately uses multiple providers and tools, choose best-of-breed products in each category, and maintain detailed documentation explaining how everything fits together.

They can also run vendor risk assessments, negotiate contracts, and oversee regular testing of backups, incident response, and business continuity.

In this context, having separate providers for hosting, backup, security, and service desk can offer flexibility without creating unmanaged risk, because someone inside the firm is accountable for the overall design. Even then, there is often value in consolidating around a small number of strategic partners, but strict single vendor alignment is no longer the only way to achieve reliability and compliance.

2. Firms With Heavily Standardized Internal Platforms

Some CPA firms are deeply invested in their own standardized platforms.

They might operate a private cloud environment on Microsoft Azure or another hyperscale provider, maintain centralized identity and access management across the firm, and operate enterprise-grade backup and security tooling.

For these firms, engaging a provider only for application hosting or for overflow help desk services can be a rational choice.

The important thing is that the firm maintains control over core security and backup decisions. The hosting or service provider sits inside that framework rather than defining it. If a firm already has this level of internal standardization, bringing in a full single vendor bundle for hosting, backup, and IT support can be redundant, or even introduce conflicts with existing controls.

3. Transitional Situations and Specialized Workloads

There are also transitional periods where a multi-vendor arrangement is practical.

For example, a firm may be mid-migration from on-premises servers to a private cloud, with legacy systems that cannot yet move. In the interim, keeping a local IT provider for those legacy systems while a cloud provider handles hosted tax and accounting applications can be more straightforward than forcing everything into a single structure before it is technically ready.

Similarly, some firms run niche or highly specialized applications that are better supported by a particular vendor or by the software publisher itself.

In those cases, it can be reasonable to keep a separate relationship for that workload, as long as responsibilities for backups, security, and support are clearly defined and documented.

When Multi-vendor Models Become Risky Over Time

Even in these scenarios, the line between a controlled multi-vendor strategy and unmanaged vendor sprawl is thin.

The warning signs are familiar. If your internal team is too small to maintain documentation, review logs, and coordinate changes across providers, risks will accumulate. If no one can state who owns key controls such as backup verification or incident response, the theoretical benefits of multiple vendors disappear.

The practical rule of thumb is simple. Multi-vendor IT can work when you have the internal capacity, governance, and documentation discipline to treat it as a designed system.

If that capacity does not exist, or if it depends on a single overextended person, you are likely to see better outcomes with a consolidated model where one specialized provider takes responsibility for the environment and you focus on oversight rather than integration.

How Verito’s VeritComplete Bundles Everything Under One Roof

For firms that conclude a single provider is the right model, the question is which partner can actually deliver the full stack: hosting, backup, security, and day-to-day IT support, with compliance built in. Verito designed VeritComplete specifically for that use case.

1. VeritSpace: Dedicated Private Cloud for Accounting and Tax Workloads

VeritSpace provides the underlying cloud platform. It is built around dedicated or logically isolated private servers tuned for accounting and tax applications. That means environments sized for software such as QuickBooks Desktop, Lacerte, Drake, CCH Axcess, UltraTax, and ProSeries, with resources planned around peak filing season.

From a risk standpoint, VeritSpace is engineered for isolation and security. Client firms are separated at the infrastructure level, traffic is encrypted in transit and at rest, and multi-factor authentication is standard.

The platform operates in SOC 2 Type II-audited facilities, which gives firms concrete evidence to reference in their written information security program, FTC Safeguards documentation, and cyber insurance applications. In practice, this allows partners to state not only that data is in the cloud, but how it is protected and monitored.

2. VeritGuard: Managed IT, Backups, and Security as an Integrated Service

Where VeritSpace focuses on the hosting environment, VeritGuard covers the managed IT layer. This includes:

• 24/7 help desk coverage for your staff
• Endpoint management for workstations and laptops
• Patching
• Monitored antivirus or endpoint detection and response
• Centralized management of core tools such as firewalls and secure remote access

Backups sit inside this managed IT scope. VeritGuard is responsible for server-level backups in the VeritSpace environment, endpoint backup coverage where required, and the disaster recovery runbooks that define how restores happen in practice. Because the same team sees incidents across servers and endpoints, they can treat backup and recovery as a single process instead of separate products.

Security and compliance expectations are built into how VeritGuard operates. Controls such as multi-factor authentication, least privilege access, and monitoring are applied consistently, and reporting from these systems can be fed into your written information security program. For firms that need help developing or updating that program, VeritShield WISP services can be layered on top to produce a documented plan that aligns with FTC Safeguards and IRS Publication 4557.

3. VeritComplete: One Bundle, One Invoice, One SLA

VeritComplete combines VeritSpace and VeritGuard into a single per user package.

Instead of paying one provider for hosting, another for backup, and a third for IT support, the firm works with a single contract, a single invoice, and a single service-level agreement that covers uptime, response times, and recovery objectives across the environment.

This structure is aimed directly at 1 to 50-person CPA firms that want enterprise-grade controls without building an internal IT department.

Pricing is designed to be predictable, so partners know what they will pay as staff counts change, and terms avoid long, inflexible commitments that create unnecessary lock in. The goal is to give firms the benefits of consolidation without asking them to accept unreasonable contract risk.

Operationally, VeritComplete is meant to reflect how accounting firms actually work:

• Support is staffed with technicians who are familiar with tax and accounting software behavior during filing season.
• Capacity planning and maintenance windows are scheduled with January through April in mind. 
• Backup and disaster recovery are treated as core services rather than upsell items.

For most firms, this translates to fewer handoffs, clearer visibility into incidents, and less time spent interpreting technical language from multiple vendors.

Evaluate Whether One Provider Is Right For Your Firm

Choosing whether to use one vendor for hosting, backup, and IT support is not a purely technical decision. It sits at the junction of risk, compliance, and how your firm survives tax season.

A multi-vendor setup may have grown naturally over the years, but as expectations under the FTC Safeguards Rule, IRS Publication 4557, and cyber insurance scrutiny have risen, the cost of vendor sprawl has quietly increased too. Fragmented responsibility makes it harder to prove you are protecting client data and harder to restore service quickly when something fails at the worst possible time.

For most 1 to 50 person CPA firms without in-house IT, consolidating with a single specialized provider usually offers a better balance. One partner becomes accountable for keeping tax and accounting applications online, running and testing backups, securing endpoints, and supporting your staff. That simplifies contracts and invoices, but more importantly, it simplifies accountability.

When you can point to one service-level agreement and one set of reports that cover your core systems, your conversations with regulators, insurers, and clients become more straightforward.

This does not mean a single provider relationship should be accepted on trust. The non-negotiables still apply. You should require evidence of strong security controls and audited infrastructure, clear recovery objectives and tested disaster recovery, 24/7 support that understands busy season realities, and contracts that preserve your data ownership and exit options.

If a provider cannot meet those standards, the model is not right for your firm, regardless of how attractive the marketing language looks.

---

tl;dr

• Most 1–50 person CPA firms stumbled into vendor sprawl over time – different providers for hosting, backup, security, and IT support that no one fully owns.
  
• Fragmented IT makes tax season outages harder to resolve, increases compliance and cyber insurance burden, and leaves partners unclear about who is accountable.
  
• A single specialized provider that handles hosting, backups, security, and support usually reduces risk and complexity for firms without in-house IT, provided you choose carefully and protect exit options.
  
• Key non-negotiables include SOC 2 level security, alignment with FTC Safeguards Rule and IRS Publication 4557, tested backup and disaster recovery, 24×7 support that understands tax software, and clear contracts that preserve data ownership.
  
• The main risks of a single provider are vendor lock in, concentration of operational risk, and potential complacency over time – all of which can be mitigated through SLAs, auditability, and explicit exit terms.
  
• Multi vendor models still make sense for larger firms with dedicated IT and security teams or highly standardized internal platforms – but they quickly become risky again when there is no capacity to manage and document them.
  
• VeritComplete combines VeritSpace private cloud hosting and VeritGuard managed IT and security into one bundle with one invoice and one SLA, designed specifically for CPA and accounting firms.
  
• Practically, your next step is to inventory current vendors, identify gaps in uptime, backups, and compliance, and then compare that against a consolidated model from a specialist like Verito before your next renewal cycle.

---

FAQ: