On Clutch

Case studies: two client engagements, in their words

Two real engagements, written up from the clients’ own words.

Each case study below is built only from what the client published in a review on Clutch — the problem they described, the work they said was done, and the result they reported. No client names, and no figure that isn’t in their review. Where the record says nothing, the page says less.

Or send the details instead

By TechBrot · Sourced from the reviews at clutch.co/profile/techbrot · read 2026-09-26 · Published · Updated

§ 01 · TL;DR
§ TL;DR

TechBrot publishes two case studies, one for each Clutch engagement. A first-year QuickBooks® cleanup for a food & beverage business, and a credit-card reconciliation cleanup for a business-services company. Both follow the same order — problem, scope, corrections, outcome, CPA-readiness — and every statement in them comes from the client’s own review, which you can read at the source.

Source: the two client reviews on Clutch, read September 26, 2026. Clients are not named; the reviews themselves are public on Clutch.
§ 02 · The two engagements

Read the case studies.

Two engagements, both on Clutch, both anonymized. Each links to the client’s review at the source.

§ 03 · How these are written

The rules behind every case study.

  • Only the record. Every statement comes from the client’s review on Clutch. Quotation marks mean the client’s exact words.
  • Anonymized. No client or company names. The industry and the client’s role are shown as Clutch shows them.
  • No invented numbers. No figure appears that the client did not state. No fee is shown.
  • Less where the record is silent. If the review does not cover a section, the section says so rather than filling it.
  • Checkable. Each case study links to the review at the source, so you can compare it with what we wrote.

More about how we work, including the primary-source rule, is on how we work. The reviews themselves are on client reviews.

§ 04 · Questions

Questions about these case studies.

Are these composite or illustrative stories?

No. Each one describes a single real engagement that the client reviewed on Clutch, and it uses only what that review says. TechBrot does not publish composite or invented client stories.

Can I read the original reviews?

Yes. Both are public on TechBrot’s Clutch profile at clutch.co/profile/techbrot, and each case study links there.

Why only two case studies?

Because TechBrot has two client reviews. A case study is published only when there is a client’s own published review behind it.

Do the case studies include numbers?

Only where the client wrote them. One client described “dozens of duplicate transactions”; that phrase is quoted, not turned into a figure.

Is my situation like these?

Possibly, if your QuickBooks records have unreconciled accounts, miscategorized transactions or duplicates. The quickest way to know is the free file review, which reads your own file.

Does TechBrot file taxes for the clients in these case studies?

No. TechBrot is a bookkeeping and advisory firm, not a CPA firm, and does not perform audits, reviews, compilations, or income-tax filing. The work prepares the books for whoever files.

Your file next

The useful case study is your own books.

Or send the details insteadWe reply within one business day. Written fixed-fee scope within 3 business days of your call. No hourly billing. What happens after you call
  1. 01We talk for up to 30 minutes. You tell us where the books stand; we ask the questions that decide the scope. No charge.
  2. 02We look at the file if we need to. You add us as an accountant user in your own QuickBooks file, and you can remove us at any time. If the file cannot be priced without working inside it, we say so and propose the paid diagnostic, whose fee is credited in full against the cleanup.
  3. 03You get a fixed fee in writing. What we will fix, what you will receive and one fixed fee. Nothing starts until you accept it.
CallBook a discovery call