Addepar and Masttro both aim to solve the “single source of truth” problem for complex wealth, especially for wealth managers and family offices dealing with multi-entity structures, alternatives, and multi-custodian data.
The practical differences usually come down to depth of analytics/workflows, how alternatives and ownership are modeled, integration philosophy, security posture, transparency, and pricing predictability.
Key takeaways
- Addepar tends to be the stronger fit when you need an enterprise-grade analytics + reporting stack, robust modeling, and an open-architecture approach to integrations and workflows (including APIs and an Integration Center).
- Masttro is often a strong fit when you want a digital family office experience (dashboards + portal + secure communications), broad asset-class coverage, many direct custodian connections, and pricing that is explicitly not based on AUM.
- Both platforms emphasize alternatives support; Addepar has invested heavily in private-markets workflows and datasets (e.g., alternatives tooling and private fund benchmarking) and positions this at enterprise scale.
- For security, Addepar publishes SOC 3 reporting (covering Security/Confidentiality/Privacy for a defined period), while Masttro’s public messaging emphasizes MFA, encryption at rest/in transit, private cloud, and Swiss-based infrastructure (with client-owned encryption keys referenced).
- If you need accounting-grade general ledger / partnership accounting as the core (not just performance reporting), FundCount may be a better “shortlist” alternative alongside (or instead of) Addepar/Masttro.
Quick comparison table
| Category | Addepar | Masttro |
| Core positioning | Multi-product platform for data aggregation, analysis, reporting; includes modeling and workflows (e.g., scenario modeling, billing, rebalancing) | “Full-stack” wealth platform emphasizing total-wealth visibility, portal/communications, and automation |
| Data aggregation | Aggregates accounts and assets (including illiquid), continually updated; emphasizes data you can use across workflows | 650+ direct custodian connections; multi-currency; processes large daily transaction volumes (per vendor claims) |
| Analytics depth | Strong analytics + reporting emphasis; adds features like return decomposition, look-through exposure, scenario modeling | Portfolio tools + dashboards; modeling tools and client analytics are key themes |
| Reporting + client portal | Customized, branded reports; client portal and mobile/iPad access; encryption referenced | Secure Communication Portal + mobile access; branding/customizable UI themes referenced |
| Alternatives | Dedicated alternatives initiatives (e.g., Alts Data Management, Private Fund Benchmarks; cash-flow forecasting in Navigator) | Alternatives supported across aggregation and reporting; emphasizes AI document workflows and integrations/partners |
| Integrations | Integration Center + flexible APIs; open REST APIs; ecosystem integrations referenced | API to push Masttro data to other systems; partner integrations highlighted; built-in CRM mentioned |
| Security posture (public info) | Publishes SOC 3 report for defined period; AWS-hosted; encryption details described in report | MFA, encryption at rest/in transit, private cloud, Swiss Tier 4 data center; client-owned encryption keys referenced |
| Pricing approach (public info) | Typically quote-based; often characterized (including by competitors) as related to AUM/scale | Explicitly not based on AUM; fixed annual cost framing |
| Best fit (typical) | RIAs/wealth managers/family offices needing deep analytics, complex ownership modeling, and integration flexibility | Family offices/wealth orgs prioritizing portal/communications, broad aggregation, predictable pricing, and Swiss-hosting posture |
Sources used for this table (non-exhaustive): Addepar product pages + integrations + developer docs and SOC 3 report; Masttro product pages for aggregation/security/pricing and platform notes; plus third-party coverage on Addepar’s alternatives features.
At-a-glance scorecard (optional)
These scores are heuristic (not lab-tested) and reflect what’s visible in public documentation and product positioning as of the “last updated” date.
| Dimension (1–5) | Addepar | Masttro |
| Data aggregation breadth | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Analytics & modeling | 5 | 4 |
| Reporting & client experience | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Alternatives workflows | 5 | 4 |
| Ownership/entity modeling | 5 | 4 |
| Integration flexibility | 5 | 4 |
| Security transparency (public artifacts) | 5 | 4 |
| Pricing predictability | 3 | 5 |
Why these rough scores:
- Addepar’s ownership structure / “Financial Graph” model and analytics posture is heavily documented, and its SOC 3 report provides a relatively detailed public artifact.
- Masttro’s public posture emphasizes direct custodian feeds, AUM-independent pricing, and security characteristics (MFA/encryption/private cloud/Swiss data center) rather than publishing audit reports in the same way.
Deep comparison
Data aggregation
Addepar
- Positions aggregation as foundational: a consolidated view across assets/currencies/entities, with data continually updated and used downstream for analytics, reporting, and workflows.
- Public SOC 3 reporting describes the platform as supporting multi-custodian and multi-asset aggregation and notes the use of open REST APIs to connect into a broader tech stack.
Masttro
- Publicly claims 650+ direct custodian connections and highlights aggregation across “every asset class,” including alternatives, real estate, and collections, with multi-currency reporting.
- The data aggregation page also states “10m+ daily transactions processed” (vendor claim), which is relevant if you’re assessing operational scale.
What this means in practice
- If your pain is data fragmentation across many custodians/jurisdictions, both tools can be shortlisted, but you should validate your specific custodians, asset types, and update frequency expectations during demos and reference checks. Masttro puts particularly strong marketing emphasis on direct custodian connectivity.
Analytics
Addepar
- Emphasizes “analyze & visualize portfolio data instantly,” with platform features including scenario modeling/forecasting and other portfolio workflows.
- Addepar’s quarterly platform updates highlight analytics features such as Return Decomposition and Portfolio Look-Through to validate strategies and understand exposure.
- In alternatives, Addepar’s messaging and third-party coverage highlight benchmarks and other tools intended to help performance measurement and evaluation in private markets.
Masttro
- Highlights “client performance analytics” and portfolio tools in its product navigation and pages; its portfolio management page references modeling concepts (e.g., targets, benchmarks) as part of investment policy discipline.
- Masttro also highlights “Masttro Intelligence” and AI-driven workflows in public materials, but specifics should be validated for your exact use cases (e.g., what’s automated vs. what requires human review).
Practical takeaway
- Choose Addepar when “analytics depth” means multiple attribution lenses, exposures, scenario/cash-flow modeling, and rich reporting configurability as a core requirement. Choose Masttro when “analytics depth” is primarily about intuitive dashboards + disciplined portfolio oversight, with heavy emphasis on operational visibility.
Reporting/portal
Addepar
- Highlights customized, branded reports and a client portal experience (including mobile/iPad), with encrypted access noted on solution pages.
- The SOC 3 report describes drag-and-drop report writing (branding, charts, tables) and the ability to send reports downstream to a white-labeled client portal and mobile application.
Masttro
- Highlights a Secure Communication Portal and mobile access as core to portfolio reporting and communication between wealth owners, family offices, and advisors.
- Masttro also emphasizes customizable themes/branding as part of platform upgrades and positions its portal experience as central.
Practical takeaway
- If your reporting requirement is “highly customizable, scalable, branded reporting as a production system,” Addepar’s reporting tooling is heavily emphasized (including in SOC documentation). If your requirement is “secure, elegant sharing + mobile-first visibility,” Masttro’s Secure Communication Portal framing may resonate.
Alternatives & ownership
This is where the platforms often feel most different.
Addepar
- Developer documentation explicitly describes how portfolios are based on an ownership structure hierarchy (households/clients/legal entities/accounts/investments) and that you can change perspectives without restructuring. This is important for complex family office entity graphs.
- Addepar’s “Financial Graph” framing explains why modeling ownership relationships matters (direct/indirect ownership %, the ability to switch analytical perspective, tracking contributions/distributions, etc.).
- On alternatives: Addepar has rolled out (and publicly discussed) tools like Alts Data Management and Private Fund Benchmarks, and cash-flow forecasting within Navigator.
Masttro
- Emphasizes aggregation across asset classes and entity structures (companies, trusts/LLCs, foundations) and highlights AI-powered alternatives workflows in product messaging.
- Public Masttro materials also emphasize AI-powered document ingestion/management for reporting and alternatives workflows (vendor claim).
- Masttro highlights an ecosystem approach for alternatives as well (e.g., integrations/partners aimed at improving alternatives reporting and visibility).
Practical takeaway
- If alternatives are a large share of the portfolio and the office needs repeatable, benchmarkable, “institutionalized” private markets reporting with strong ownership modeling, Addepar’s public roadmap and tooling are especially explicit. If the objective is holistic visibility + automated document extraction + clean sharing (with strong custodian connectivity), Masttro may be compelling, especially for UHNW-centric operating models.
Integrations
Addepar
- Positions itself as an “open architecture” platform with an Integration Center and flexible APIs to build custom integrations with in-house or third-party systems.
- Addepar’s developer documentation explicitly says it integrates with tools like trading/rebalancing platforms and CRMs, and that you can use the API to tailor solutions.
- Addepar’s “Inside Addepar” updates also reference new ecosystem integrations released in 2025 (examples include 11th.com, BITA Risk, and MantaRisk).
Masttro
- Notes a platform API that can push Masttro datasets into portals, spreadsheets, general ledgers, and other applications (useful if you’re building a broader ecosystem).
- Masttro’s FAQ also claims integrated CRM functionality within the platform for contact/document storage tied to assets.
Practical takeaway
- If your environment includes a mature stack (CRM, trading, data warehouse, custom portals), Addepar’s ecosystem messaging is very explicit. If you want a strong out-of-the-box experience but still need data portability, Masttro’s API positioning may be sufficient: validate endpoints, rate limits, and data scope in a technical session.
Security
Addepar
- Addepar publishes a SOC 3 report for its Analytics & Reporting and Navigator Platforms, with an examination period July 1, 2024 to August 31, 2025, relevant to Security, Confidentiality, and Privacy.
- The SOC 3 report describes AWS hosting and includes encryption details (e.g., encryption of sensitive fields and encryption at rest in AWS) and notes the use of REST APIs and a client web portal as part of the system description.
- Product pages also reference safeguards like role-based access control and encryption at rest/in transit.
Masttro
- Masttro’s security page emphasizes military-grade encryption protocols, multi-factor authentication, data encrypted at rest and in transit, private cloud architecture, and Swiss-based infrastructure, including storage in a dedicated Tier 4 data center in Switzerland.
- Masttro also references client-owned data encryption keys and positions its Secure Communication Portal as a safer alternative to email for sensitive sharing.
Practical takeaway
- If your procurement team needs formal audit artifacts and clear scoping language, Addepar’s public SOC 3 is a meaningful data point. If jurisdiction and infrastructure posture (e.g., Swiss hosting) and client-controlled encryption keys are central, Masttro’s published positioning aligns: confirm details in a security review (key management model, incident response, access controls, etc.).
Pricing
Addepar
- Addepar does not publicly post standard pricing on its marketing pages (generally quote-based), and the exact structure tends to vary by scope/modules/scale.
- Publicly, competitors characterize Addepar pricing as related to client AUM. Treat that as a directional indicator, not a contract fact, until you see your proposal.
Masttro
- Masttro explicitly states its pricing model is not based on AUM and frames it as a fixed annual cost approach (“Invest in your growth — without the rising costs”).
How to evaluate pricing fairly
- Ask both vendors for a proposal based on the same scope: number of households/entities, number of users, required integrations, asset types (especially alts), reporting requirements, portal users, and service/support needs.
- Compare all-in costs: base subscription + implementation + data onboarding + ongoing data ops/support + any premium datasets or modules. Addepar’s SOC documentation notes that some functionality and data components can have additional fees (example: market data fees mentioned in product updates).
Implementation & TCO
Addepar
- Public materials reference onboarding support from in-house experts and training/help resources.
- The SOC 3 report describes a Services team involved in onboarding/implementation, data migration/verification, and training.
Masttro
- Implementation effort often depends on how many custodians/portals/entities/alts documents you need to normalize and how much historical data is required. Masttro emphasizes direct feeds and automation; you should validate time-to-value and ongoing operational workload through references.
TCO reality check
- The software line item is only part of the cost. The bigger drivers tend to be: data onboarding and normalization (especially alternatives), reporting templates, portal rollout, and integration/SSO requirements.
- For many teams, the “best” platform is the one that most reduces ongoing manual reconciliation and reporting labor, not necessarily the cheapest subscription.
Pros & cons (both)
Addepar — Pros
- Strong emphasis on analytics + reporting with configurable views and advanced features (e.g., scenario modeling, return decomposition, look-through exposure).
- Clear ownership/entity modeling concepts in public documentation (ownership structure; “Financial Graph”).
- Strong “open architecture” story: Integration Center + flexible APIs + developer portal.
- Publishes SOC 3 reporting with a defined period and system description, which can help with security due diligence.
Addepar — Cons
- Pricing is typically not publicly transparent; you’ll need a formal proposal and should expect scope-driven complexity.
- Depending on your operating model, you may still need adjacent systems (e.g., general ledger, CRM, document systems), though Addepar’s ecosystem aims to connect these.
Masttro — Pros
- Strong emphasis on total-wealth visibility and client experience, including secure communications and mobile access.
- Explicit stance on AUM-independent pricing, which can improve predictability as you grow.
- Strong marketing emphasis on broad direct custodian connectivity and multi-currency aggregation.
- Security posture messaging highlights MFA, encryption at rest/in transit, private cloud, and Swiss infrastructure, which may align with certain risk preferences.
Masttro — Cons
- Public security materials are more marketing-oriented; if your procurement requires formal audit artifacts (e.g., SOC reports), you’ll want to request them directly (if available).
- Integration story is present (API), but the depth/breadth of integrations vs. your existing stack should be validated in technical discovery.
Which one should you choose? (decision tree)
Use this as a structured way to decide, then validate with demos and references.
Do you need a platform primarily for deep analytics/reporting with highly configurable ownership-based analysis?
- Yes → lean Addepar. Ownership structures and multi-product analytics/reporting are central to its published model.
- No / you need a holistic portal + communications-first digital family office experience → continue.
Is pricing predictability (no AUM-based scaling) a hard requirement?
- Yes → lean Masttro (explicitly not AUM-based).
- No → either can work; continue.
Is private markets workflow maturity (benchmarks, automated alts document ingestion + verification, portfolio cash-flow forecasting) a top priority?
- Yes → lean Addepar (publicly described tools: Alts Data Management, Private Fund Benchmarks, Navigator cash-flow forecasting).
- No / your priority is aggregation + visibility + sharing → Masttro may be sufficient.
Do you have a complex ecosystem that requires extensive integrations (CRM, trading/rebalancing, data warehouse, custom portals)?
- Yes → Addepar tends to be strong on “open architecture” and integration ecosystem positioning.
- No / moderate integration needs → Masttro’s API approach may work, but validate.
Security requirements: do you need public audit artifacts for procurement?
- Yes → Addepar’s SOC 3 is a useful starting point.
- No / Swiss hosting posture and client-managed encryption keys are more important → Masttro may align.
FundCount: Another alternative to Addepar and Masttro
FundCount is structurally different from both Addepar and Masttro: it more directly centers accounting + reporting with a real-time general ledger and support for partnership and portfolio accounting.
Best for
- Family offices and investment offices that need portfolio + partnership accounting + general ledger tightly integrated (not just performance reporting).
- Teams that need multi-entity consolidation, tax/audit-ready reporting, and a strong back-office operating model.
- Firms that want broad integration options (e.g., Zapier and APIs) for surrounding workflow tooling.
3-way table
| Category | Addepar | Masttro | FundCount |
| “Center of gravity” | Analytics + reporting + platform workflows | Digital family office experience + aggregation + secure sharing | Accounting (GL) + partnership/portfolio accounting + reporting |
| Ownership/entity modeling | Explicitly documented ownership structure (“Financial Graph”) | Strong emphasis on entity structures in product messaging | Emphasis on multi-entity, nested structures via accounting + GL consolidation |
| Alternatives support | Heavy investment in alts workflows + benchmarks | AI/document workflows and partner ecosystem emphasized | Document intelligence + accounting/reporting workflows emphasized |
| Integrations | Integration Center + APIs | API + partners + integrated CRM messaging | AppUniverse; Zapier + API messaging |
| Pricing transparency (public) | Quote-based; not posted | Not AUM-based (public claim) | Starting prices listed on vendor site; also listed on Capterra as starting price |
Sources for this comparison: Addepar integrations/dev docs/SOC reporting; Masttro pricing/security/product info; FundCount product/pricing/AppUniverse + Capterra listing.
When to choose FundCount
Choose FundCount when you need one system where:
- All transactions flow through a real-time general ledger (continuous accounting) and you don’t want performance reporting detached from accounting reality.
- You need financial statements (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow, NAV, capital statements) plus multi-entity reporting from the same underlying ledger.
- You want clearer pricing anchors in public materials (starting prices and defined packages), even though final pricing still depends on scope and fees.
FAQs
Are Addepar and Masttro accounting systems?
They are primarily positioned as aggregation/analytics/reporting and wealth visibility platforms. If your core requirement is accounting-grade GL + partnership accounting, FundCount is more explicitly built around that paradigm.
Can both platforms handle complex ownership and entities?
Addepar explicitly documents ownership hierarchies (households/clients/entities/accounts/investments) and the ability to analyze from different “perspectives.” Masttro emphasizes entity structures (trusts/LLCs/foundations) in its platform messaging.
Do they support alternatives and illiquid assets?
Yes. Both emphasize coverage across liquid and illiquid assets. Addepar has published significant alternatives tooling (including alts data management and benchmarks), and Masttro highlights alternatives aggregation and AI document workflows.
Do they offer APIs/integrations?
Yes. Addepar positions flexible APIs and an Integration Center; Masttro describes an API that can push data to other systems. FundCount also describes integrations via Zapier and custom API through its AppUniverse.
What security features are publicly described?
Addepar publishes a SOC 3 report covering a defined period and describes encryption controls in that report; its product pages mention role-based access control and encryption at rest/in transit. Masttro publicly emphasizes MFA, encryption at rest/in transit, private cloud, Swiss Tier 4 hosting, and client-owned encryption keys.
Is Masttro really not priced on AUM?
Masttro’s pricing page explicitly states its model is not based on AUM, and its competitor comparison page repeats this framing. You should still validate your exact scope in a proposal.
What’s the biggest implementation risk with these platforms?
Typically: data onboarding quality (especially alternatives), entity/ownership mapping, and reporting template governance. Ask for: sample implementation plans, data QA approach, and reference clients with similar complexity.
Methodology + last updated
How this comparison was built (high level):
- Reviewed public product documentation and pages from Addepar, Masttro, and FundCount (features, positioning, integrations, pricing pages).
- Reviewed Addepar’s publicly available SOC 3 report text for security and system description details.
- Included third-party sources where they add concrete detail (e.g., WealthManagement.com on Addepar alternatives releases; Capterra for FundCount pricing anchor and summary).
Last updated: January 17, 2026.
