Wealth-Management Technology Platforms: Addepar, Arch, Masttro, Wove

A family office with $100M+ of assets spread across 30 accounts at 8 institutions, with private equity commitments, direct deals, and multiple entities, produces more data than a spreadsheet can handle. Modern wealth-management technology platforms consolidate the data, generate consistent reporting, and provide the analytical infrastructure that lets the CIO and principal make informed decisions.

The platform choice matters because switching is painful (typically 6-18 months and meaningful cost), staff workflows are built around the platform, and the quality of the reporting drives quality of decisions. Four major platforms dominate the 2025 market for family offices: Addepar, Arch, Masttro, and Wove (formerly Morningstar Office plus ByAllAccounts, rebranded after acquisitions).

This article walks through the platform differences, the selection criteria, and the implementation realities.

Addepar: The Institutional Reference

Addepar, founded in 2009 and valued at over $3B in its 2024 funding round, is the reference platform for large family offices and wealth-management firms. Built on a flexible data model that handles arbitrary account types, hierarchies, and instruments.

Strengths:

• Data flexibility: Handles any asset class including private equity positions with capital calls, distributions, NAV updates, and valuation adjustments.
• Reporting quality: Pre-built and customizable reports suitable for institutional presentation. Client-facing portals.
• Market share: 1,000+ firms use Addepar, including major MFOs and private banks. Integration with most data providers.
• Performance attribution: Multi-level attribution by asset class, strategy, and manager.

Weaknesses:

• Cost: Starting around $50K-$100K per year for SFO use, scaling to $500K+ for complex implementations with multiple users.
• Implementation time: 3-9 months typical for full onboarding. Requires dedicated project lead.
• Learning curve: Power users produce great reports. Casual users find the system complex.

Typical fit: SFOs with $200M+ of AUM, MFOs at any scale, RIAs with HNW clients.

Arch: The Alts-Native Platform

Arch launched in 2022 as a platform specifically designed for the alternatives data problem. Family offices with meaningful private-equity, venture, and real-estate exposure have historically struggled with incomplete and inconsistent data from fund GPs. Arch automates the GP-data ingestion workflow.

Strengths:

• Alts data automation: Pulls capital calls, distributions, and NAV updates directly from GP reporting through email parsing, OCR, and direct integrations.
• Alts-centric workflow: Cash flow projections, commitment tracking, J-curve modeling.
• Fast deployment: Lighter implementation than Addepar. Can be productive in 4-8 weeks.
• Integration with public-market platforms: Often used alongside Addepar or Wove to handle the alts layer.

Weaknesses:

• Narrow scope: Primarily alts. Full portfolio reporting typically requires companion platform for liquid assets.
• Younger product: Newer than Addepar. Some gaps in advanced features.

Typical fit: Family offices with 30-50%+ alternatives allocation, especially those managing LP positions across many funds.

Masttro: The All-in-One Challenger

Masttro (formerly known as Mastro, rebranded) positions as an integrated wealth platform with deep data-aggregation capability and reporting suitable for both SFO and MFO contexts. European origin with growing U.S. presence.

Strengths:

• Integrated workflow: Cash management, alerts, performance reporting, document management in one platform.
• Multi-entity handling: Strong for complex family structures with many entities.
• Cost: Typically lower than Addepar for comparable scope. $30K-$150K per year range.
• Deployment: 6-12 weeks typical.

Weaknesses:

• U.S. market presence: Smaller installed base than Addepar in the U.S. Some integrations less mature.
• Alts depth: Less specialized than Arch for pure alternatives workflows.

Typical fit: Mid-size family offices ($75M-$300M) looking for integrated platform without top-tier institutional cost.

Wove: The Advisor-Scale Platform

Wove is Morningstar’s integrated platform created from Morningstar Office and ByAllAccounts integration, targeted at RIAs and smaller family offices. Not typically a fit for $500M+ SFOs but well-suited to advisors and smaller wealth firms.

Strengths:

• Advisor tooling: Built for RIA workflows. Proposal generation, client-portal, billing.
• Morningstar ecosystem: Integration with Morningstar research, fund analytics.
• Cost: Mid-range. $15K-$75K per year for SFO implementations.
• Ease of use: Approachable for small teams without dedicated implementation specialists.

Weaknesses:

• Institutional reporting: Less polished than Addepar for institutional-grade reporting.
• Alts depth: Basic alts handling. Not specialized.

Typical fit: Advisor-scale firms, smaller family offices ($25M-$150M), newly-formed SFOs that will graduate to larger platform later.

Platform Selection Criteria

The selection should be driven by:

1. Asset mix: Heavy alts (>30%) tilts toward Arch plus companion. Balanced mix tilts toward Addepar or Masttro. Mostly public markets tilts toward Wove or Masttro.

2. Scale: Under $100M AUM, Wove or Masttro. $100M-$500M, Masttro or Addepar. $500M+, typically Addepar.

3. Reporting audience: Institutional presentations to committees, boards, and outside advisors lean Addepar. Simpler client-and-staff reporting works on Wove or Masttro.

4. Implementation tolerance: Can you commit 6-9 months of implementation? Addepar requires it. Arch and Wove are faster.

5. Staff technology skills: Addepar rewards investment in training. Wove is more forgiving of casual users.

6. Data sources: Unusual custodians, international accounts, or specific fund GPs may have better integrations with one platform than another. Check specific integrations.

Implementation Reality

A typical Addepar implementation for an SFO:

1. Discovery and data mapping (weeks 1-4): Inventory of accounts, instruments, entities. Definition of reporting requirements.

2. Data connection and historical load (weeks 4-12): Custodian integrations, manual data entry for positions without automation, historical performance reconstruction.

3. Report design and validation (weeks 8-16): Build the specific reports needed. Validate accuracy against known positions and prior reports.

4. User training and handoff (weeks 14-20): Staff training on the platform. Initial reports delivered.

5. Ongoing maintenance: Quarterly reconciliation, new manager onboarding, report refinement.

Budget for implementation: $50K-$200K in professional services (Addepar’s implementation team or a third-party integrator) plus internal time (20-40% of one staff FTE for 4-6 months).

Arch implementation is lighter: 4-8 weeks and $15K-$50K in services. Wove similar. Masttro between the two.

Data Quality and Maintenance

Platforms are only as good as the data feeding them. Common data-quality issues:

1. Alts NAV updates: GPs deliver NAVs quarterly or semi-annually, sometimes late. Platform may show stale data for weeks.

2. Private position valuations: Direct deals require manual entry or periodic appraisal. Drift is common.

3. Cost basis tracking: Historical cost basis is sometimes incomplete for positions held before platform adoption.

4. Cross-entity aggregation: Complex ownership structures (LLCs owning LP positions owned by trusts) require careful hierarchy definition. Errors propagate.

5. Custodian data gaps: Some custodians don’t provide full data to automation tools. Manual supplementation required.

A good family office CIO allocates 10-20% of CIO and staff time to data-quality maintenance. Under-investing produces reports that are wrong, which produces decisions that are wrong.

Emerging and Adjacent Platforms

Beyond the four majors:

• Black Diamond (SS&C): Competing platform similar to Wove. Common at midsize RIAs.
• Orion: Comparable to Wove. Growing family-office share.
• Envestnet Tamarac: RIA-focused; less common at SFOs.
• Canoe Intelligence: Alts-data automation. Often integrated with Addepar or Wove.
• Juniper Square: Fund-administration-focused, used for LP-level reporting in some family office structures.
• Vanilla: Estate-planning software, complementary to portfolio platforms.

Most SFOs run 2-4 platforms stacked (one primary, one alts-specialist, one estate/legal, one reporting layer).

Frequently Asked

Can I run a family office on spreadsheets alone? Up to about $20M-$30M of assets with simple structure, yes. Above, spreadsheet error rates compound and reporting becomes unreliable.

Should I require my MFO to use my preferred platform? Unusual request. MFOs use their chosen platform across all clients; individual family preferences typically don’t change this. If platform matters to you specifically, consider SFO structure where you control the choice.

What about AI-driven insights on these platforms? 2024-2025 has seen AI-overlay features added to Addepar and Wove for anomaly detection, explanatory reporting, and client-question answering. Still early. Useful but not transformative yet.

Do I need data backup beyond the platform? Yes. Platform vendors could fail, lose data, or change terms. Maintain monthly or quarterly data exports to independent storage.

How often should I revisit the platform choice? Every 3-5 years. Platform market evolves. Your needs evolve. Current platform may still be best, but periodic reassessment prevents lock-in complacency.