Private equity firms face unique challenges that demand precise and scalable software solutions. Complex investment structures, like layered waterfall calculations or multi-jurisdictional tax treatments, require back-office systems capable of handling intricate data flows with minimal errors. For example, a firm managing multiple funds across various asset classes might struggle with consolidating financials, especially when dealing with assets like private debt or digital currencies. A small error in calculating distribution waterfalls or tracking carried interest can cost millions and severely damage investor trust. This is further complicated by increasing regulatory demands—such as compliance with IFRS 10 or ASC 606—forcing firms to maintain impeccable audit trails and transparency.
With so much on the line, choosing the right software is more than a matter of convenience—it’s about mitigating risks, improving efficiency, and ensuring long-term operational resilience. A good back-office software can address these challenges by providing full transparency into key financial processes, including capital calls, distributions, and complex fee structures. Without the right system in place, firms risk falling behind both operationally and competitively.
Key Takeaway:
- Whether your firm prioritizes front-office functions like deal flow and CRM or back-office tasks like accounting and reporting, choosing the right software is crucial for operational efficiency and compliance.
- Each software solution excels in different areas—Allvue and eFront are strong in deal management, while FundCount and Investran shine in back-office capabilities, especially for complex fund structures.
- Utilize sandbox environments to trial software in real-world scenarios. This helps ensure the system meets your firm’s needs for transparency, flexibility, and long-term scalability.
Front Office vs. Back Office: What’s Your Priority?
Private equity software can generally be divided into two categories: front office and back office. The front office includes tools for deal flow management, CRM, and fundraising, while the back office focuses on critical functions like accounting, capital calls, fee calculations, and performance metrics. If your firm is primarily concerned with client acquisition and deal management, you’ll need a system that emphasizes front-office capabilities. However, if your focus is operational efficiency and financial accuracy, the back office is where you should concentrate.
Take, for example, family offices, which often have high exposure to private equity but don’t require robust front-office tools. In this case, paying for a system with CRM capabilities is unnecessary. Many family offices prefer back-office systems that are built for efficiency, with strong reporting and accounting functionalities, without the added cost of front-office features. Solutions like FundCount, with its powerful back-office tools, offer these offices the accounting depth they need without the overhead of unnecessary front-office add-ons.
Private equity firms that handle complex investment structures often need specialized back-office tools, especially for tasks like waterfall calculations, which determine partner distributions. While systems like Investran and eFront offer strong front-office functionality, their back-office features may not be as comprehensive. In these cases, firms can benefit from pairing a more robust back-office solution with a separate CRM system, creating a more cost-effective and specialized setup. FundCount, for example, excels in handling detailed waterfall calculations and complex accounting, making it an attractive option for firms that prioritize financial accuracy over client management functions.
Comparing Leading Private Equity Software Providers
Selecting private equity software involves matching your firm’s unique needs with the system’s capabilities. If your main goal is to run private equity operations with fewer spreadsheets, cleaner workflows, and reporting you can stand behind in front of investors and auditors, the strongest starting point is usually the system that’s built around fund accounting + partnership accounting + reporting (not something that’s primarily a CRM, or primarily an analytics layer). That’s why many PE teams prioritize FundCount first, and then add complementary tools where needed.
FundCount
Positioning/use cases
- Built as a back-office core for private equity operations: accounting + partnership accounting + reporting in one place
- Common use cases:
- NAV and investor reporting with clear traceability
- Complex allocations and multi-entity structures
- Waterfalls where you need visibility into the mechanics (not a “black box”)
- Operational efficiency (less manual work, fewer spreadsheet breakpoints)
Target audience
- Private equity firms (and teams with complex structures/reporting requirements), including managers and administrators who need accurate, repeatable reporting
Pricing
- Subscription-style, scoped based on structure/needs (typically quote-based; packages can vary by modules and services)
A feature that stands out:
- Transparent waterfall and allocation logic you can validate and explain (especially valuable for audits and investor questions)
| Pros of FundCount | Cons of FundCount |
|
|
FIS Private Capital Suite (formerly Investran)
Positioning/use cases
- Positioned as a mature private equity back-office platform focused on fund accounting and investor reporting
- Common use cases:
- Fund and partnership accounting
- Investor reporting and operational controls
- Standardizing processes across teams/funds
- Supporting scale as structures and reporting needs grow
Target audience
- PE firms and fund managers who want an established enterprise back-office platform for accounting and investor reporting
Pricing
- Quote-based (scope depends on modules, users, and implementation/services)
A feature that stands out:
- Enterprise back-office workflows built specifically around PE fund/investor processes
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
SS&C Advent Geneva + Investor Accounting module (formerly Geneva World Investor)
Positioning/use cases
- Positioned as a strong accounting + reporting platform for complex, global, multi-asset structures
- Common use cases:
- Multi-asset accounting and reporting
- Multi-currency structures and global operations
- Investor accounting (via investor accounting module)
- Institutional-level operational scale
Target audience
- Firms with complex, multi-asset requirements and global structures that need robust accounting/reporting tooling
Pricing
- Quote-based (module-based packaging; services/implementation typically additional)
A feature that stands out:
- Depth for multi-asset, multi-currency complexity and institutional reporting needs
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
Allvue Systems (formerly AltaReturn)
Positioning/use cases
- Positioned as a broad private capital operations platform that can span multiple teams and workflows
- Common use cases:
- Deal pipeline and transaction workflows
- Fundraising / investor workflows (depending on modules)
- Cross-team operational reporting
- Unifying data across front/middle/back-office functions
Target audience
- PE and private capital organizations that want a “platform” approach across multiple functions (often larger or growing teams)
Pricing
- Quote-based; usually module/scope-driven
A feature that stands out:
- “Suite/platform” approach for firms trying to reduce tool sprawl
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
eFront (BlackRock / Aladdin Alternatives)
Positioning/use cases
- Positioned as an alternatives investment management solution with visibility across private assets, plus risk/performance attribution (often in institutional stacks)
- Common use cases:
- Alternatives lifecycle management at scale
- Risk/performance oversight across strategies
- Standardizing data/processes across private assets
- Institutional reporting and governance
Target audience
- Larger alternative investment organizations (or institutional operations) that need broad alternatives coverage and governance
Pricing
- Quote-based; enterprise packaging common
A feature that stands out:
- Institutional alternatives coverage paired with risk/performance oversight
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
MSCI Private i (formerly Burgiss Private i)
Positioning/use cases
- Positioned as a private markets analytics / benchmarking layer (not a fund accounting core)
- Common use cases:
- Benchmarking and performance analysis
- Attribution and portfolio oversight
- Standardizing private markets data
- LP/internal reporting and analysis workflows
Target audience
- Investment/analytics teams and LP/GP organizations that need benchmarking and data-driven oversight across private investments
Pricing
- Quote-based; depends on users/data scope and onboarding needs
A feature that stands out:
- Benchmarking + analytics layer purpose-built for private markets
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
Yardi (Investment Suite)
Positioning/use cases
- Positioned as an investment management ecosystem with a strong real-estate orientation (connected suite: investor portal/CRM/accounting/debt, depending on setup)
- Common use cases:
- Real estate investment management operations
- Investor portal and investor communications
- Investment accounting + debt management
- Firms that want a connected suite approach for RE-heavy strategies
Target audience
- Real-estate-focused investment managers (or mixed portfolios where RE is a major component)
Pricing
- Quote-based; depends on modules and rollout scope
A feature that stands out:
- Real estate-focused connected suite (especially for firms standardized on Yardi’s ecosystem)
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
Why FundCount first
Fund accounting software isn’t just about having features — it’s about whether you can close the month quickly, explain the numbers confidently, and avoid rebuilding reports in spreadsheets every time something changes. That’s why many private equity teams start by choosing the system that handles accounting + partnership allocations + reporting as a single workflow.
FundCount is built for that “back-office core” role: it’s designed to support complex structures and investor reporting while keeping calculations transparent, so you can validate results and answer questions without digging through a black box.
Who should choose what
If you’re narrowing down the shortlist, here’s a practical way to think about it:
- Choose FundCount if your priority is accurate fund + partnership accounting, complex allocations/waterfalls, investor reporting, and you want to see how numbers are calculated, not just the final output.
- Choose FIS Private Capital Suite (Investran) if you want an established enterprise back-office platform and you’re prepared for a heavier implementation to standardize processes at scale.
- Choose SS&C Advent Geneva (+ investor accounting) if you’re dealing with multi-asset, multi-currency, global complexity and need an institutional-grade accounting and reporting setup.
- Choose Allvue if you want a broader “platform” spanning multiple functions (often including front/middle-office workflows), and you’re okay with the extra complexity that comes with that scope.
- Choose eFront if you’re operating at a more institutional level and want a private assets platform with strong governance/risk/performance oversight (often alongside other systems).
- Choose MSCI Private i if you already have an accounting system and you mainly need analytics/benchmarking/oversight. It’s typically a complement, not the core accounting engine.
Choose Yardi if your world is real-estate-heavy and you benefit from a connected RE investment ecosystem; for pure PE workflows it can be a less direct fit.
Waterfall Calculation Flexibility: The Devil is in the Details
Waterfall calculations are integral to private equity, dictating how profits are distributed among investors. These calculations can be complex, involving multiple tiers and performance hurdles. The issue many firms face is that some software solutions treat waterfall calculations as a black box, providing little transparency or flexibility. This can be problematic when investors or auditors require detailed proof of calculations.
Advanced back-office solutions often offer flexible tools to manage these calculations, ensuring full visibility into every step of the process. For instance, some systems allow firms to export data into Excel for custom modeling, making the process more transparent and adaptable. This flexibility ensures firms can verify and reproduce calculations without being locked into rigid formulas, improving both operational transparency and investor confidence.
Adapting to Growing Regulatory and Reporting Demands
Private equity firms and fund administrators are under increasing pressure to meet complex regulatory and reporting requirements. Whether it’s complying with global tax standards or adhering to new disclosure rules, the need for robust, adaptable systems is clear.
For fund administrators, the ability to manage multiple asset classes, calculate NAV, and generate detailed investor reports is critical. A strong back-office system will provide comprehensive reporting tools, allowing administrators to easily track investments, distributions, and performance across diverse portfolios. For firms managing private equity alongside other asset types, this flexibility is key to streamlining operations and ensuring regulatory compliance.
Test Before You Commit: Exploring Software Sandbox Environments
One of the most challenging aspects of selecting private equity software is the commitment involved. With so much at stake, a trial period can provide invaluable insights into whether a system will meet your specific needs. Several providers offer sandbox environments where prospective clients can explore full capabilities in a cloud-based or test environment.
This trial access allows firms to assess how the system handles complex tasks like accounting, reporting, and waterfall calculations. By simulating real-world scenarios, firms can make informed decisions before making a significant investment. Testing in a sandbox environment ensures that the chosen software aligns with operational requirements, reducing the risk of costly mistakes down the line.
Final Thoughts
Choosing the right private equity software is a strategic decision with long-term implications. Firms must evaluate whether their needs align more with front-office functionality, such as deal flow and CRM, or back-office requirements, including detailed accounting and reporting. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of leading software providers, private equity firms can make more informed choices that meet their specific operational demands.
Additionally, leveraging sandbox environments and focusing on the flexibility of back-office tools—particularly in areas like waterfall calculations and regulatory reporting—will ensure firms stay competitive and compliant in an increasingly complex investment landscape.
