The math seems simple. A fractional CFO costs $6,000 to $12,000 per month. A full-time CFO costs $25,000 to $40,000 per month in total compensation. Fractional wins on cost. Decision made.
Except the decision isn’t actually about cost. It’s about whether your business needs 10 hours per week of senior financial attention or 50. Whether you need strategic guidance or daily operational leadership. Whether your complexity requires dedicated focus or can share bandwidth with other clients.
The fractional CFO vs full-time CFO question trips up companies because they frame it as a budget decision when it’s really a needs decision. Hire full-time before you need it, and you’re overpaying for capacity you can’t use. Stay fractional too long, and you’re underserving a business that’s outgrown part-time attention.
According to Deloitte’s 2024 CFO Survey, companies between $10 million and $50 million in revenue show the widest variation in finance leadership structure—some thriving with fractional support, others struggling without full-time presence. The difference isn’t company size alone. It’s complexity, transaction activity, and what the CFO actually needs to do.
This guide helps you evaluate which model fits your current reality, understand when to transition between models, and avoid the costly mistakes of hiring too early or too late.
The Fundamental Difference: Availability vs. Efficiency
Before comparing costs, understand what you’re actually buying with each model.
A full-time CFO is available. They’re in your office (or on your Slack) during business hours. When a crisis emerges at 3pm on a Tuesday, they’re there. When a board member calls with an unexpected question, they answer. When a complex decision needs financial input, they join the meeting. Availability means you don’t schedule around their other clients. You don’t wait for their “day” with your company. You have continuous access to financial leadership.
A fractional CFO is efficient. They’ve done this before—often many times, across multiple companies. They bring pattern recognition from seeing how other businesses solved similar problems. They focus intensively during their hours with you because they’re not filling an eight-hour day with busywork. They challenge your assumptions with outside perspective rather than getting captured by internal thinking. Efficiency means you get senior expertise without paying for the hours between high-value activities.
Neither availability nor efficiency is universally superior. A business in crisis needs availability—someone who can work the problem for eight hours straight when necessary. A business seeking strategic guidance on a functioning operation needs efficiency—expertise applied at the right moments without ongoing overhead.
Understanding which you need more of right now clarifies the fractional vs full-time decision better than any financial analysis.
Cost Comparison: The Full Picture
The cost gap between fractional and full-time CFOs is real, but the commonly cited numbers understate the difference.
Full-time CFO total cost extends well beyond base salary. According to Glassdoor salary data, CFO base salaries range from $200,000 to $400,000 depending on company size, industry, and location. Add employer payroll taxes (roughly 7.65%), benefits (typically 20-30% of salary for health insurance, retirement contributions, and other benefits), and equity compensation (often 0.5% to 2% for growth-stage companies).
A CFO with a $250,000 base salary actually costs:
- Base salary: $250,000
- Payroll taxes: $19,125
- Benefits: $50,000 to $75,000
- Equity: Variable but potentially worth $50,000+ annually
- Recruiting costs: $75,000 to $100,000 (one-time, typically 30% of first-year salary)
- Severance risk: 3 to 6 months salary if it doesn’t work out
Total first-year cost: $400,000 to $500,000+
That’s $33,000 to $42,000 per month all-in, not the $20,000 that a simple salary division suggests.
Fractional CFO total cost is more straightforward. Monthly retainers typically range from $4,000 to $15,000 depending on hours and complexity. There’s no benefits overhead, no equity dilution, no recruiting cost, and minimal termination friction. A $8,000 monthly fractional engagement costs $96,000 annually—roughly 20-25% of the full-time equivalent.
The cost gap widens further when you account for utilization. A full-time CFO filling a 50-hour week might spend 15 hours on genuinely strategic work and 35 hours on operational tasks, meetings, and administrative overhead. A fractional CFO spending 15 hours weekly focuses almost entirely on high-value activities. You’re not paying for the overhead hours.
When Full-Time Makes Sense
Despite the cost premium, full-time CFO hires are the right choice in certain situations. Recognizing these patterns prevents the mistake of staying fractional too long.
Daily operational complexity overwhelms part-time attention. Some businesses generate enough financial activity that CFO involvement is needed constantly—not for strategy, but for operational decisions. Companies with high transaction volumes, complex revenue recognition requiring continuous judgment, or frequent financing activities may need someone present every day. If your fractional CFO’s 15 monthly hours are consumed by operational fires leaving no time for strategy, you’ve outgrown the model.
Investor or board expectations sometimes require full-time presence. Institutional investors, particularly private equity sponsors, often expect portfolio companies to have dedicated CFOs. Boards preparing for exit may want full-time financial leadership to ensure nothing falls through cracks during a critical period. These expectations may not reflect operational need, but they’re real constraints. Fighting them wastes political capital better spent elsewhere.
Building a finance organization requires daily leadership. If you’re hiring controllers, FP&A analysts, and accounting staff, someone needs to manage them. A fractional CFO can provide strategic oversight of a finance team, but daily management—one-on-ones, performance reviews, hiring decisions, process improvement—requires presence that part-time arrangements can’t provide. Once your finance headcount exceeds three or four people, full-time leadership becomes more practical.
Transaction intensity can justify full-time cost. A company executing a major acquisition, going through an IPO, or managing a complex restructuring may need CFO attention that exceeds fractional capacity. These transactions often last six to twelve months, and the value at stake dwarfs the cost difference between fractional and full-time. The temporary nature suggests you might return to fractional afterward, but during the transaction, full-time makes sense.
Cultural or organizational need for a full executive team member sometimes matters. Early-stage companies often function with fractional everything—fractional CFO, fractional CMO, fractional HR. As companies mature, the leadership team dynamic shifts. Having a full-time CFO as a peer to other C-suite executives affects strategy discussions, decision-making speed, and organizational culture in ways that part-time engagement cannot replicate.
When Fractional Makes Sense
Fractional CFO arrangements fit more situations than most companies realize. The model has expanded because it genuinely works for a wide range of businesses.
Revenue under $15 million rarely justifies full-time CFO cost. At $10 million in revenue, a $400,000 CFO represents 4% of revenue—a significant burden that’s hard to justify unless your business is unusually complex or transaction-heavy. Fractional engagement at $100,000 annually represents 1% of revenue, a more sustainable investment that still provides strategic value. The math shifts as revenue grows, but most companies below $15 million fit the fractional model better.
Stable operations don’t require constant CFO presence. A business with predictable revenue, established processes, and a competent accounting team doesn’t generate enough CFO-level work to fill 40+ hours weekly. A fractional CFO can handle monthly board prep, quarterly planning, annual budgeting, and ad-hoc strategic questions without the overhead of full-time employment. Paying for availability you don’t need wastes resources.
Expertise gaps that rotate benefit from fractional flexibility. This quarter you need fundraising expertise. Next year you need M&A integration experience. Two years out you need IPO readiness. A fractional CFO with broad experience can adapt to these rotating needs. Alternatively, you might engage different specialists for each phase—something impossible with a single full-time hire whose expertise may not match every challenge.
Budget constraints are a legitimate factor. A company that could benefit from CFO leadership but can’t afford $400,000 annually isn’t choosing between fractional and full-time—they’re choosing between fractional and nothing. In this context, fractional clearly wins. Some CFO guidance beats no CFO guidance, even if full-time would theoretically be better.
Uncertain trajectory favors lower commitment. If you’re not sure whether you’ll be twice your current size in two years or struggling to survive, locking in full-time executive compensation creates risk. Fractional arrangements can scale up or down with your business. If growth accelerates, you can add hours or transition to full-time later. If growth stalls, you can reduce engagement without severance packages and awkward terminations.
Fractional vs Full-Time CFO Comparison
| Factor | Fractional CFO | Full-Time CFO |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly Cost | $4,000–$15,000 | $33,000–$45,000 (fully loaded) |
| Annual Cost | $48,000–$180,000 | $400,000–$550,000 |
| Availability | Scheduled hours, typically 10–25/week | Full business hours plus emergencies |
| Commitment | Month-to-month or short-term contracts | Employment relationship, severance risk |
| Expertise Breadth | Often broad experience across many companies | Deep focus on your company specifically |
| Team Leadership | Strategic oversight, limited daily management | Full management of finance organization |
| Best For | $3M–$20M revenue, stable operations, specific projects | $20M+ revenue, high complexity, organizational leadership |
| Transition Trigger | Consistent need exceeds 30 hrs/week | Economics favor full-time, operational need is constant |
The Transition Decision: Signs You’ve Outgrown Fractional
Most companies start with fractional and eventually transition to full-time as they scale. Recognizing the transition point prevents both premature hiring and damaging delays.
Consistent hours exceeding 25-30 weekly suggest fractional economics are breaking down. At $400/hour implied rate, a fractional CFO working 30 hours weekly costs roughly $12,000 per week or $48,000 monthly. That exceeds full-time cost while still providing less availability. If your fractional engagement consistently pushes these boundaries, the math favors transitioning.
Scheduling friction affecting business speed indicates availability problems. If important decisions wait because your fractional CFO isn’t available until Thursday, you’re paying a hidden cost in delayed execution. Occasional scheduling challenges are normal. Persistent friction that slows the business signals inadequate coverage.
Finance team growing beyond three to four people creates management requirements that fractional arrangements struggle to address. Staff need regular one-on-ones, performance feedback, career development conversations, and day-to-day direction. A fractional CFO can supervise a controller who manages the team, but at some point, direct leadership from a full-time executive becomes necessary.
Board or investor pressure to add full-time leadership may reflect legitimate concerns about operational capacity, or it may reflect bias toward traditional structures. Either way, persistent pressure from governance stakeholders creates friction that may not be worth fighting. Understanding whether the pressure reflects genuine need or mere preference helps you decide how to respond.
You’re interviewing fractional CFOs constantly because engagements keep ending. If you’ve cycled through multiple fractional relationships in two years, the problem may be the model rather than the individuals. Full-time employment creates different incentives for commitment and continuity that might serve you better.
Complexity has structurally increased beyond what periodic attention can address. You’ve added business lines, expanded internationally, or taken on complicated financing. The business today bears little resemblance to the business when you engaged fractional support. Reassessing whether the model still fits makes sense whenever the business changes substantially.
The Transition Decision: Signs Full-Time Is Premature
Not every company pushing against fractional boundaries should hire full-time. Sometimes the answer is a different fractional CFO, an upgraded accounting team, or patience.
The need is temporary even if intense. Fundraising creates CFO demands that disappear after closing. Audit years require more attention than non-audit years. Seasonal businesses have peak periods that don’t reflect normal operations. If you can identify when the intensity will subside, fractional surge capacity may be more efficient than permanent headcount.
The bottleneck is below CFO level. Sometimes fractional CFO hours are consumed by work that shouldn’t reach them—bookkeeping cleanup, basic reporting, routine analysis. Adding a controller or upgrading your outsourced accounting support might free your fractional CFO to focus on strategic work, extending the runway before full-time hire becomes necessary.
You can’t afford full-time compensation. Stretching to afford a mediocre full-time CFO at below-market compensation usually produces worse results than maintaining a strong fractional relationship. If budget constraints are real, acknowledge them rather than hiring someone whose capabilities match your budget rather than your needs.
You’re not sure what you need. Hiring full-time crystallizes a job description that may not reflect actual requirements. If you’re uncertain whether you need fundraising expertise, operational turnaround experience, or M&A capabilities, staying fractional preserves flexibility to engage different specialists as clarity emerges.
The business trajectory is uncertain. In periods of significant uncertainty—market shifts, potential pivots, unclear funding path—adding fixed executive compensation increases risk. Fractional arrangements allow you to scale finance leadership with the business rather than betting on a specific outcome.
Hybrid Models: The Best of Both
The fractional vs full-time choice isn’t always binary. Hybrid structures can capture advantages of both models.
Full-time controller plus fractional CFO is the most common hybrid. The controller handles daily accounting operations, close processes, and team management. The fractional CFO provides strategic oversight, board interface, and senior judgment on complex decisions. This structure works well for companies between $10 million and $30 million in revenue—complex enough to need both roles, but not generating enough CFO-level work for full-time.
The GetExact model often operates this way, providing outsourced accounting that includes controller functions alongside fractional CFO services for strategic oversight. The integration between layers eliminates coordination friction that can occur when these functions are sourced separately.
Full-time CFO plus fractional specialty support applies at larger companies. You have a full-time CFO handling ongoing operations, but engage fractional specialists for specific projects: M&A integration, international expansion, IPO readiness. This model acknowledges that no single CFO has every expertise, and temporary engagements for specialized needs often beat trying to hire permanent generalists.
Fractional to full-time pipeline structures the relationship as an extended evaluation. Some fractional CFOs are open to converting to full-time if the relationship develops well and the company’s needs evolve. Starting fractional lets both parties assess fit without the commitment and risk of immediate full-time employment. Not all fractional CFOs want full-time roles—many prefer the fractional model deliberately—but those open to conversion can provide a low-risk path to permanent hire.
Making the Decision: A Framework
When evaluating fractional CFO vs full-time CFO, work through these questions systematically.
How many hours of CFO-level work does your business actually generate? Be honest about this. Not accounting work—your bookkeeper handles that. Not controller work—financial close, reconciliations, basic reporting. Actual CFO work: strategic planning, investor relations, board management, complex decision support. If that work fills 10 to 20 hours weekly, fractional fits. If it fills 35+ hours consistently, consider full-time.
What’s driving your consideration of full-time? If the answer is “we should have a real CFO,” interrogate that assumption. If the answer is “our fractional CFO can’t keep up with our needs,” that’s a more concrete signal. If the answer is “our board is pressuring us,” understand whether that pressure reflects legitimate concerns or conventional thinking.
What would a full-time CFO actually do all day? Write out the job description. List the daily, weekly, and monthly responsibilities. Does that list justify 40+ hours weekly from a $300,000+ executive? If you find yourself adding tasks that don’t require CFO-level judgment just to fill the role, you’re probably not ready.
Can you afford the true cost? Not just salary, but total compensation, recruiting, severance risk, and opportunity cost of equity. If full-time CFO cost would strain the business or require tradeoffs in other critical areas, fractional may be the right answer regardless of theoretical preference.
What’s your 18-month trajectory? If you expect significant complexity increases—new business lines, international expansion, major transactions—you might grow into full-time need even if it doesn’t exist today. Conversely, if the business is stable, the current fractional model may serve indefinitely.
Frequently Asked Questions
What’s the difference between a fractional CFO and a full-time CFO?
The primary difference is time commitment and availability. Full-time CFOs work exclusively for one company, typically 40-50 hours weekly, and handle both strategic and operational finance leadership. Fractional CFOs work with multiple clients, typically providing 10-25 hours weekly to each, focusing primarily on strategic guidance rather than daily operations. Full-time CFOs cost $400,000 to $550,000 annually when fully loaded; fractional CFOs cost $48,000 to $180,000 for comparable strategic value.
When should I switch from fractional to full-time CFO?
Consider transitioning when fractional hours consistently exceed 25-30 weekly, when scheduling friction slows business decisions, when your finance team grows beyond 3-4 people needing daily management, or when investors and board members express legitimate concerns about leadership capacity. The transition typically makes sense at $15 million to $25 million in revenue, though complexity matters more than revenue alone.
Is a fractional CFO worth it for a small business?
For most businesses between $1 million and $15 million in revenue, fractional CFO support provides better value than full-time. You get senior expertise at 20-25% of full-time cost, with flexibility to scale engagement up or down. Small businesses rarely generate enough CFO-level work to justify full-time compensation. See our analysis of whether fractional CFOs are worth the investment.
Can a fractional CFO become full-time?
Some fractional CFOs are open to converting to full-time employment if the relationship develops well. This provides an extended evaluation period that reduces hiring risk. However, many fractional CFOs prefer the fractional model deliberately and aren’t interested in returning to full-time employment. If conversion potential matters to you, discuss it early in the relationship.
How do I know if my fractional CFO arrangement is working?
Signs of a working fractional relationship include improved board confidence in financial reporting, faster answers to financial questions, better visibility into business performance, and concrete value delivered (cost savings identified, fundraising supported, decisions improved). If you feel constant scheduling friction, lack of responsiveness, or gaps between what you need and what you’re getting, the arrangement may need adjustment. Our guide on choosing a fractional CFO covers evaluation criteria.
The Right Choice at the Right Time
Fractional CFO vs full-time CFO isn’t a permanent decision. It’s a choice that should evolve with your business. Most companies benefit from starting fractional—accessing senior expertise without premature commitment—and transitioning to full-time when genuine operational need emerges.
The mistake isn’t hiring full-time eventually. The mistake is hiring full-time before the business generates enough work to utilize the investment, or staying fractional past the point where part-time attention can address your needs.
Get clear on what your business actually requires today. Not what it might require in two years, not what similar companies do, not what your board thinks you should have. What you actually need right now, and whether that need fills 15 hours weekly or 50.
GetExact works with companies across this spectrum, providing fractional CFO services for those who fit the model and honest guidance for those who’ve outgrown it. If you’re uncertain which structure fits your current situation, schedule a consultation to discuss your specific needs. We’ll help you assess whether fractional, full-time, or a hybrid approach makes the most sense—even if that means pointing you toward a full-time hire rather than our services.
