Automatic invoicing is used for two different things depending on which side of the transaction you are on, and searches for it turn up both. Raising invoices automatically is a sales and billing capability. Receiving and processing them automatically is a payables one. They share a word and almost nothing else, and it is worth knowing which you are looking at.
On the selling side
Invoices generated from a contract, a subscription, a delivery or a timesheet, sent without anybody typing them. The concerns are billing accuracy, recurring schedules, tax treatment and getting paid. This is a revenue capability, usually part of an accounting or billing system, and its measure of success is cash collected.
On the buying side
Invoices received, captured, matched, routed and paid without keying. The concerns are verification, control and elapsed time. This is a payables capability, and its measure of success is invoices cleared without human attention plus not paying for things twice or for things that never arrived. Nothing about it generates revenue; it prevents loss and removes effort.
Why the distinction matters when buying software
Products serving the two sides look superficially similar and solve opposite problems. A billing product has no concept of a three-way match; a payables product has no concept of a subscription schedule. Being explicit about which side you are on saves an evaluation spent talking past a vendor whose product was never relevant.
Questions people ask about automatic invoicing
Can one system do both?
Accounting suites cover both to some degree, usually well on one side and adequately on the other. Which side they are strong on varies and is worth checking against your actual problem.
Is automatic invoicing the same as e-invoicing?
Not quite. E-invoicing describes exchanging structured invoice data between parties, which can support automation on both sides.
Which side has more to gain?
It depends entirely on your volumes. A business issuing few invoices and receiving many should look at payables, and the reverse for the reverse.