Addepar is widely used for data aggregation, analytics, and portfolio reporting, including workflows like portfolio trading/rebalancing and modeling on top of aggregated data.

But “Addepar alternative” searches usually come from teams that need one (or more) of the following:

This guide compares 7 global alternatives and competitors across the things buyers actually validate in demos: features, integrations, pros/cons, pricing approach, use cases, implementation effort, and performance considerations. FundCount is listed first because it covers a common “reason to switch” (accounting + reporting + portal in one workflow), but the analysis is designed to be neutral and shortlist-oriented.

Key takeaways

Quick comparison table

 

Platform	Best for	Accounting depth	Portal / reporting strength	Integration posture	Pricing posture (public info)	Typical watch-outs
FundCount	Reporting + portal tied to the books	High	High	API + Zapier ecosystem	Published plan structure; quote-based details	Heavier implementation than reporting-only tools
SS&C Black Diamond	Client-ready reporting + portal	Low–Med	High	Large integration network + API	Quote-based	Less accounting depth for multi-entity books
Orion	Advisor suite: accounting + reporting + rebalancing + billing	Med	Med–High	API + modular stack	Quote-based	Validate alternatives/complex entity coverage
Envestnet | Tamarac	Reporting + billing + rebalancing, advisor operations	Med	Med–High	APIs + CRM ecosystem (incl. Salesforce)	Quote-based	Validate held-away + alts workflows
Masttro	UHNW total-wealth view + entity mapping + mobile	Low–Med	High	API + direct custodian feeds	Not AUM-based	Validate accounting workflow needs
Archway	Family office platform built on a core general ledger	High	High	Platform + services model	Quote-based	Often enterprise implementation effort
Eton AtlasFive	End-to-end FO ops + workflows	High	Med–High	Platform + integrations	Quote-based	Validate module depth vs. best-of-breed

 

*Notes behind these categorizations are based on each vendor’s published positioning and documentation.

At-a-glance scorecard (optional)

These scores are directional and reflect what’s most commonly evaluated when replacing Addepar: aggregation + alternatives support, reporting/portal experience, accounting depth, integration flexibility, and security transparency. Validate in demos.

Platform	Aggregation breadth	Alternatives workflows	Reporting + portal	Accounting depth	Integration flexibility	Security transparency
FundCount	4	5	4	5	4	4
Black Diamond	4	3	5	2	4	3
Orion	4	3	4	3	4	3
Tamarac	4	3	4	3	4	3
Masttro	4	4	5	2	3–4	4
Archway	4	4	4	5	3	3
AtlasFive	4	4	4	5	3	3

*Public artifacts used to inform “integration flexibility” and “security transparency” include vendor API docs and security reporting where available (e.g., Addepar’s SOC 3), plus vendor documentation about encryption/MFA/architecture.

FundCount — Best for accounting-grade reporting + investor portal in one workflow

One-line verdict: Choose FundCount when you want reporting, performance, and investor delivery anchored to a real accounting system (not a reporting layer that has to reconcile to separate books).

Best for

Key capabilities

• Portfolio accounting + partnership + real-time general ledger in a single platform (positioned as an integrated accounting core).
• Investor portal for publishing statements and documents from the reporting workflow, with encryption and MFA.
• Alternatives support via AI Document Intelligence: extract/verify/reconcile data from PDFs/Excel and push it into workflows (useful when held-away assets are a time sink).
• Multi-asset and cross-asset reporting positioning (public + private assets in one view).

Integrations

• AppUniverse positioning includes Zapier-based integration with thousands of apps and the ability to connect via custom APIs (e.g., tax software, AML/KYC, e-sign).

Pros

• Strong fit when the real problem is “reporting has to match the books” (especially for entity reporting and complex allocations).
• Portal distribution reduces manual publishing steps and helps keep the “latest version” of statements available.
• Alternatives document automation can reduce operational overhead in private funds workflows.

Cons / limitations

• If you only need a reporting layer and already have accounting locked down, an accounting-centric platform may be more than you need.
• Implementation quality depends on entity setup, data migration, and workflow design (as with any system of record).

Pricing approach

• FundCount publishes plan structure (e.g., Sandbox/Pro/Enterprise) and describes pricing as flexible by requirements; exact pricing is typically scoped to needs.

Implementation & TCO notes

• Biggest effort drivers: mapping entity structures, migrating historical transactions, setting up alternatives workflows, and defining report packages.
• Ask what is included vs. separate (data conversion, training, support tiers).

Performance considerations

• Benchmark: speed of generating batch reports and portal publishing at quarter-end; volume of alternatives documents processed; audit trail completeness.

Demo questions

• “Show the end-to-end workflow from accounting entries → performance reporting → portal publishing.”
• “How do you handle multi-entity rollups and look-through reporting?”
• “Show AI Document Intelligence on a real private fund statement (and how exceptions are handled).”
• “What’s the integration approach: Zapier vs API vs file-based workflows?”

SS&C Black Diamond — Best for client-ready reporting + portal experience

One-line verdict: Black Diamond is a strong pick when your priority is a polished client reporting and portal experience with a broad integrations ecosystem.

Best for

Key capabilities

• Report creation built for client meetings: drag-and-drop visuals, branded reports, batch and ad-hoc report generation.
• An “integration network” positioning that includes API support and prebuilt connectivity.
• Positions custodian and prime broker connectivity as a key advantage (network of 800+).

Integrations

• Black Diamond explicitly promotes a network of “prebuilt integrations” and an API.

Pros

• Strong client-facing reporting outputs and presentation quality.
• Large ecosystem approach to integrations and connectivity.

Cons / limitations

• If you need full entity-level accounting (GL, partnership accounting), validate how Black Diamond fits alongside your accounting system rather than replacing it.
• Alternative assets and held-away workflows vary widely by implementation—test with your real holdings.

Pricing approach

• Quote-based (pricing is not published on the product pages referenced here).

Implementation & TCO notes

• Key effort drivers: custodian onboarding, data reconciliation, report templates, and training teams on reporting workflows.

Performance considerations

• Test batch report performance and portal responsiveness for your account volume; validate how frequently data refreshes for each custodian feed.

Demo questions

• “Show batch generation of our quarterly package across all households.”
• “Which integrations are native vs partner-built vs custom API work?”
• “Show how you handle held-away assets and alternatives in reports.”

Orion Advisor Tech — Best for advisor “suite” buyers (accounting + reporting + rebalancing + billing)

One-line verdict: Orion is a fit when you want a broader advisor operating platform (reporting + rebalancing + billing) rather than a pure analytics and reporting layer.

Best for

Key capabilities

• Orion’s portfolio accounting positioning includes household-level rebalancing and a billing engine.
• Reporting tools focused on personalized, client-facing reports.
• Developer portal describes a functional API for portfolios (including households, accounts, assets, transactions) and trading models.

Integrations

• Orion’s developer documentation describes API access to portfolio and trading data, supporting custom workflows and integrations.

Pros

• Broad operational suite for advisors (portfolio accounting, reporting, rebalancing, billing).
• API availability supports integration into a larger stack.

Cons / limitations

• If you’re choosing an “Addepar alternative” because of deep multi-entity ownership modeling, validate whether Orion’s household/entity structure matches your reality.
• For heavy alternatives, document ingestion and valuation workflows should be demoed with real samples.

Pricing approach

• Quote-based (pricing not publicly detailed in the sources cited).

Implementation & TCO notes

• Key effort drivers: custodian feeds, billing rules, model portfolios, report templates, and advisor workflow adoption.

Performance considerations

• Ask about report generation speed at quarter-end and API rate limits/volume needs (if you plan to integrate heavily).

Demo questions

• “Show household-level rebalancing and how it impacts reporting and billing.”
• “Show API capabilities for pulling holdings/transactions and pushing model changes.”
• “How do you model and report on alternative assets and held-away holdings?”

Envestnet | Tamarac — Best for reporting + billing + rebalancing in the Envestnet ecosystem

One-line verdict: Tamarac is a common shortlist for advisor teams that want performance reporting, billing, and trading/rebalancing, plus integrations (notably Salesforce).

Best for

Key capabilities

• Schwab Advisor Services describes Tamarac Reporting as a portfolio management and performance reporting tool with portal and document vault delivery, plus portfolio/risk analysis and alternatives capabilities.
• Envestnet developer portal positions Tamarac Reporting as delivering portfolio analysis, flexible reporting, and billing capabilities, with API access.
• Envestnet’s Salesforce integration page describes a dashboard with performance and allocation breakdowns and syncing of client records/accounts (Salesforce + Tamarac).

Integrations

• Envestnet documents API access for Tamarac Reporting.
• Salesforce integration is explicitly documented.

Pros

• Strong fit for advisory firms that want a proven reporting/billing/rebalancing approach with ecosystem integrations.
• API availability can reduce manual export/import work if you have internal BI tooling.

Cons / limitations

• If your main reason to leave Addepar is “we need a general ledger + entity accounting,” Tamarac is typically evaluated alongside (not instead of) accounting systems.
• Alternatives workflow depth varies—test with real private fund statements, capital calls, and valuation updates.

Pricing approach

• Quote-based overall; some integration listings show per-user pricing for specific connectors, but core platform pricing is not broadly published.

Implementation & TCO notes

• Key effort drivers: data migration, billing rule configuration, model portfolio setup, CRM integration configuration.

Performance considerations

• Ask about data refresh timing, batch report generation throughput, and API call volume constraints if you plan to build reporting automation.

Demo questions

• “Show the exact quarterly reporting package we send today—how do you build and batch deliver it?”
• “Show billing configuration for our most complex fee schedules.”
• “Show Salesforce workflow: client record sync + launch reporting from CRM.”

Masttro — Best for UHNW total-wealth visibility + entity mapping + non-AUM-based pricing

One-line verdict: Masttro is built for family offices and UHNW wealth teams that want a unified net worth view, strong portal/mobile experience, and pricing not based on AUM.

Best for

Key capabilities

• Direct data aggregation positioning: connects directly to 650+ custodians worldwide.
• Family-office structure mapping: “Global Wealth Map” described as visualizing entities, ownership structures, and portfolios.
• Secure Communication Portal is part of the platform positioning.
• Security posture described in vendor materials includes encryption at rest/in transit and MFA, plus private cloud / Swiss infrastructure references.
• Pricing page explicitly states pricing is not based on AUM.

Integrations

• Public materials describe an API to integrate Masttro datasets with other systems (validate scope and endpoints in your demo).

Pros

• Family-office-first UX and entity mapping can align well with UHNW operating reality.
• Pricing posture avoids “fees rise as AUM rises” dynamics.
• Strong emphasis on direct data feeds, alternatives, and secure portal experience.

Cons / limitations

• If you need a full accounting engine (GL + partnership accounting) as your system of record, validate whether Masttro is “the books” or an aggregation/reporting layer alongside your accounting system.
• Be precise in demos about what counts as “real-time” and how alternative valuations and cash flows are maintained (automated vs manual).

Pricing approach

• Fixed annual pricing model that is not AUM-based, with quotes based on scope.

Implementation & TCO notes

• Key effort drivers: entity graph setup, custodian connections, document ingestion workflows for alternatives, user permissioning across family members/advisors.

Performance considerations

• Ask about data refresh cadence per custodian, latency for mobile portal updates, and throughput for document ingestion during quarter-end.

Demo questions

• “Show how you model trusts/LLCs and roll up reporting at different levels (individual vs entity vs family).”
• “Show alternatives reporting workflows (capital calls, distributions, valuation updates).”
• “Confirm pricing is not AUM-based and what drives the quote.”

Archway — Best for family offices wanting a GL-based platform + extensive reporting library

One-line verdict: Archway is positioned as a family office platform that unifies accounting + investment data aggregation + reporting, built on a core general ledger.

Best for

Key capabilities

• Archway describes a core general ledger that automatically creates journal entries behind back-office operations, including investment activity, treasury functions, bill pay, and partnership tracking.
• Reporting library described as 200+ templates across financial statements, asset allocation, performance, risk reports, etc.
• Archway positions itself as enabling account aggregation and investment performance alongside accounting and reporting.

Integrations

• Archway emphasizes a platform + services approach; integration specifics often depend on implementation (validate: custodians, data feeds, exports, and any APIs offered).

Pros

• Strong option when you need both traditional financial statements and investment reporting from one platform.
• Large report library can speed up report package standardization.

Cons / limitations

• Enterprise implementations can be heavier; expect more upfront project work and change management.
• Validate how self-serve reporting customization is vs. services-dependent.

Pricing approach

• Quote-based (not publicly listed in detail).

Implementation & TCO notes

• Key effort drivers: GL setup, entity structure, chart of accounts mapping, historical data conversion, report configuration.

Performance considerations

• Test consolidated reporting speed for your entity depth and transaction volume; ask how year-end and audit workflows are supported.

Demo questions

• “Show the GL posting flow behind investment activity and how it ties to reporting.”
• “Show 3–5 templates from the report library that match our deliverables.”
• “How much report customization is self-serve vs professional services?”

Eton Solutions (AtlasFive) — Best for end-to-end family office operations + workflows

One-line verdict: AtlasFive is positioned for complex organizations that want a broad operating platform—spanning investment management, accounting, tax, doc management, bill pay, and workflows.

Best for

Key capabilities

• Eton positions AtlasFive as managing 270+ workflows across investment management, accounting, tax, document management, bill pay, transaction processing, fund accounting, trust accounting, and more.
• Emphasis on AI + data integration to streamline operations.

Integrations

• Integration typically becomes part of the “platform rollout” scope—validate what is native vs integrated (custodians, banking, document systems, reporting exports).

Pros

• Strong choice when your goal is operational consolidation, not only reporting dashboards.
• Workflow breadth can reduce the number of point tools your office depends on.

Cons / limitations

• Scope can be big; validate module-by-module depth and avoid buying breadth you won’t deploy.
• Enterprise change management risk: when one platform touches everything, adoption is the project.

Pricing approach

• Quote-based (enterprise scope).

Implementation & TCO notes

• Key effort drivers: workflow design, permissions, integrations, data migration, and onboarding all operational teams.

Performance considerations

• Measure end-to-end workflow throughput (not just report speed): how quickly the platform moves data from intake → approval → posting → reporting.

Demo questions

• “Show the workflows we run weekly/monthly (bill pay, approvals, reporting, tax support) and how they are audited.”
• “Which modules are truly core vs add-ons?”
• “Show how investment data flows into reporting and operational workflows.”

Which alternative should you choose? (decision tree)

Use this to shortlist quickly:

1. Do you need a general ledger / partnership or entity accounting as part of the platform (not separate)?

• Yes → shortlist FundCount (accounting + reporting + investor portal) and Archway (GL-based family office platform), and consider AtlasFive if you want broad ops workflows.
• No → go to #2

2. Is your #1 priority a polished client reporting + portal experience (especially for RIAs)?

• Yes → shortlist Black Diamond (strong reporting/portal emphasis).
• No → go to #3

3. Do you want an advisor suite that includes rebalancing + billing + reporting?

• Yes → shortlist Orion and Tamarac and validate CRM and API fit.
• No → go to #4

4. Are you a family office/UHNW team prioritizing total-wealth visibility, entity mapping, and non-AUM-based pricing?

• Yes → shortlist Masttro.
• No → revisit the evaluation criteria: your needs may be mostly about integrations, data operations, or internal analytics workflows.

FAQs

Is Addepar “API-friendly” compared to alternatives?

Addepar publicly positions itself as an open platform with REST APIs, and its developer documentation describes API workflow categories (Portfolio, Ownership Graph, Admin). If integration flexibility is a key requirement, validate API coverage (read/write scope), rate limits, and data model fit in a technical session.

Which Addepar alternative is best if we need accounting-grade reporting?

If you need reporting anchored to a system of record (GL + partnership/entity accounting) rather than a reporting overlay, look first at platforms that explicitly include accounting foundations—such as FundCount (portfolio + partnership + GL) and Archway (core GL-based platform).

Which is best for client portal and presentation-quality reports?

If client-facing reporting is the priority, Black Diamond emphasizes client-ready, branded reporting outputs (batch/ad-hoc) and promotes a broad integrations network for advisor stacks.

Which is best for UHNW family offices with complex entity structures?

Masttro is positioned specifically for family offices and emphasizes multi-entity mapping (Global Wealth Map), secure portal communication, and direct custodian connectivity—plus pricing not based on AUM.

Do any of these platforms replace Addepar’s ownership/entity modeling?

Some do, some don’t—and the difference is often the data model. Addepar’s developer docs describe portfolios as based on an ownership hierarchy of households, clients, legal entities, accounts, and investments. When evaluating alternatives, ask vendors to model your real structure (trusts/LLCs, joint accounts, look-through entities) in a proof-of-concept.

Is pricing typically AUM-based?

Pricing varies by vendor and is often quote-based. Some platforms (like Masttro) explicitly state pricing is not based on AUM. For others, confirm exactly what the pricing metric is (AUM, accounts, households, users, reporting packages, modules, or service levels) during procurement.

How long does implementation usually take?

Implementation time depends less on the software and more on: number of custodians, quality of security master data, alternatives volume, entity complexity, report customization, and integrations. For each vendor, ask for a phased rollout plan (Week 0–4, 4–8, 8–12+) tied to concrete deliverables.

What integrations should we prioritize?

Most wealth teams prioritize: custodial feeds/data aggregation, CRM (Salesforce/Redtail), trading/rebalancing, document management, and data warehouse/BI. Several vendors document API programs (e.g., Addepar, Orion, Tamarac, Black Diamond), which can reduce manual exports and brittle file workflows.

Methodology + last updated

How we selected the 7

This list focuses on platforms commonly evaluated as “Addepar alternatives” by wealth managers and family offices: some are reporting/portfolio platforms, others are GL-based family office systems, and some are advisor suites that compete on reporting + operations.

Evaluation criteria (what we compared)

Sources
We used publicly available vendor documentation and product pages (APIs, integrations, security, and feature pages) including: Addepar’s developer portal, integrations page, and SOC 3 report; Black Diamond’s reporting and integrations pages; Orion developer API docs; Envestnet/Tamarac API and integration pages; and vendor pages for Masttro, Archway, and Eton Solutions.

Disclosure
FundCount is included in the ranking and placed #1 based on fit for accounting-grade reporting + portal workflows; readers should validate suitability via demos and a scoped proposal.

Last updated: January 22, 2026