5 Best Planning Platforms for Large Advisory Teams: 2027

Start with the category decision

A financial planning platform for advisory teams is software that models client goals, cash flow, taxes and scenarios, then turns those models into a plan a client can read and approve. Before you compare vendors, decide which category you are buying. A standalone planning engine suits a firm that already runs custody, portfolio and CRM systems it wants to keep. An all-in-one stack suits a firm that wants planning, reporting and client portals under one login, even if that means changing other systems.

Planning software is now close to standard practice. Planning software use: 83% of advisors according to InvestmentNews (2026), which reports the 2026 T3/Inside Information survey. For an owner, the open question is which tool fits a team of advisors without creating a second data-entry job.

Key Takeaways

TL;DR: Five platforms belong on the shortlist for a large advisory team: RightCapital, eMoney, MoneyGuide, Orion Planning and Advyzon. Only RightCapital and MoneyGuide publish per-advisor list prices on their own sites, so the other three need written quotes before you can compare cost.

• Settle the category first. A standalone planning engine fits a firm with an existing CRM and custody stack, while an all-in-one fits a firm that is consolidating systems.

• Compare total cost, not the headline price. RightCapital's assistant access and MoneyGuide's per-user add-ons change the bill for a team.

• Ask every vendor for team administration detail in writing. Permissions, plan archiving and standard workflows matter most for multi-advisor firms, and the public pages we reviewed say little about them.

• Count the handoffs. Re-keying client data between the CRM, the planning tool and proposals creates most of the avoidable work, and a workflow layer can reduce it if someone owns the field mapping.

• Treat do-it-yourself automation as an ongoing commitment. Zapier and similar tools can route errors, but you design, monitor and maintain that error handling yourself.

How we evaluated these tools

We built this guide from public vendor pages and independent sources, including a trade guide, Kitces Research columns, and developer and help documentation. We did not run hands-on trials or test any product in a sandbox. Vendor press releases are self-reported, so we used them only where an independent source repeated the claim.

The weights below reflect a buyer running a team of advisors, not a solo planner. They are our judgment, not vendor or survey data.

Planning depth carries the most weight because a tool that cannot model cash flow forces workarounds that every advisor then repeats. Team administration and integration together carry 40 points because they decide how much manual copying the team absorbs.

We considered NaviPlan and Moneytree and left them out of the scoring. We did not open an official pricing or product page for either in this review, so we could not confirm their current scope or cost.

What each platform publishes

Table 2 records what we could confirm on vendor pages, plus what a trade guide adds. "Not stated" means the page we opened did not say.

eMoney adoption: 31.1% of independent advisors according to Kitces (2025). The same column says RightCapital has overtaken MoneyGuide among independent advisors, leaving eMoney ahead of it, and it names eMoney for financial planning as the most-used planning tool.

Our read: adoption shows what peers already buy, which is useful for reference checks but is not a fit test. For a large team, the enterprise and integration rows matter more, and eMoney's own enterprise page does not describe multi-advisor admin controls.

Vendor profiles

Each profile separates what the vendor states from our read.

RightCapital

Vendor facts: RightCapital sells three per-advisor plans, offers a free trial, and routes its Enterprise option to sales. Trade coverage credits Smart Import and a Zocks sync, as described in the trade guide cited above.

Best fit: teams that want published per-advisor prices and a trial before a sales conversation.

Limitations: Enterprise pricing is not public, assistant access costs extra, and every plan carries an annual commitment for its first year.

Implementation: confirm which plan includes the integrations your team needs, and who signs the first-year commitment.

Our read: this is the clearest price path of the five, though the Enterprise decision still runs through sales.

eMoney

Vendor facts: eMoney's pricing page lists Plus, Pro, Premier and Enterprise packages without prices and links to a free trial (eMoney pricing page). Its Enterprise page says API access and capabilities are tailored to use case, and that eMoney integrates with leading CRMs, custodians and portfolio management platforms (eMoney Enterprise).

Best fit: firms that put planning depth first and will accept a quote-based contract.

Limitations: the Enterprise page does not describe multi-advisor admin controls, so ask for a demonstration of permissions and plan archiving before you sign.

Implementation: the page names data migration and plan development among additional services. Ask which of them are included in the quote.

Our read: a widely used planning tool, according to the Kitces column, with the least cost visibility of the five.

MoneyGuide

Vendor facts: MoneyGuide's products page lists per-advisor plans, a Platform plan described as "All in one platform," and per-user add-ons. It states that list prices exclude applicable state and local taxes, and it lists a Complimentary Assistance License without explaining its terms.

Best fit: teams that want goals-based planning and published per-advisor prices.

Limitations: the add-on terms are thin on the page, and add-ons such as Dash are priced per user rather than per firm.

Implementation: the trade guide says Dash is meant to shorten the path from first meeting to recommendation. Check whether that matches your intake process before you buy.

Our read: published prices make MoneyGuide the easiest of the five to budget for before a sales call. For a head-to-head on the two most-discussed names, see MoneyGuidePro vs eMoney for financial planners.

Orion Planning

Vendor facts: Orion describes Planning as a hybrid, with a goals-based client interface running on cash-flow modeling and live data from Orion Portfolio Accounting. Advisors can run scenarios, and clients get a mobile-friendly portal. The product can be bought standalone, with other Orion products, or in the Orion Advantage Stack. Pricing depends on firm size and configuration (Orion Planning).

Best fit: firms that already run portfolio accounting on Orion.

Limitations: there is no public price, and the page names no CRM integration. It also says it is intended for investment professionals only.

Implementation: advisors reach Planning from Orion Connect, the Advisor Portal or the mobile app. Branded reports can be shared through the Document Vault.

Our read: if your CRM is not an Orion product, budget for the handoff between the CRM and planning before you sign.

Advyzon

Vendor facts: Advyzon's page says Financial Planning is now live, with two modes: Comprehensive Cash-Flow Planning for clients with several connected goals, and Goals-Based Investing for simpler situations. Recommendations carry into proposals and portfolio work, and each plan stays linked to the household record and client portal (Advyzon Financial Planning). The page lists no pricing and asks prospects to request a demo.

Best fit: firms that want planning, reporting, CRM and client portals in one login.

Limitations: there is no public price, and the two planning modes differ in depth. Confirm which mode your clients need.

Implementation: plan the migration of household records before you start, because the planning layer depends on that record.

Our read: an all-in-one path can reduce handoffs if you accept the platform as your system of record.

Pricing you can check

Pricing checked November 13, 2026. Table 3 uses list prices read on each vendor's own page. Where a vendor publishes no price, the cell reads Quote-based. Monthly figures are per advisor.

The Basic plan on RightCapital is $149.95 per advisor per month, the Premium plan is $209.95 and the Platinum plan is $254.95, billed monthly with an annual commitment in the first year, according to RightCapital (2026). The same page lists a 14-day free trial, assistant access at $40 per assistant per month, and consolidated billing for groups with 10+ advisor licenses.

The Comprehensive Goal-Based Planning plan on MoneyGuide is $2,000 a year, or $175 a month on an annual subscription, according to MoneyGuide (2026). Paying monthly therefore comes to $2,100 a year per advisor, $100 more than the annual price, and Dash is $500 per user a year.

Team size changes the math more than any single line item. Table 4 applies the list prices above to 10, 50 and 100 advisors. These are arithmetic on list prices, not quotes, and they exclude assistant add-ons, state taxes and any negotiated discount.

RightCapital's Basic and Premium figures apply the monthly list prices for 12 months, according to RightCapital (2026), and MoneyGuide's figures apply its annual subscription price, according to MoneyGuide (2026).

Tech spend: 2%-5% of revenue for most advisors according to Kitces (2026), which cites Kitces Research on Advisor Technology. Use that range to set one ceiling for the planning platform and the workflow layer together, not for each separately.

Who this is for

Choose RightCapital if you want published per-advisor prices and a trial before a sales call. Choose MoneyGuide if goals-based planning and published add-on prices matter most. Choose eMoney if planning depth is the priority and you will accept a quote. Choose Orion Planning if your portfolio accounting already runs on Orion. Choose Advyzon if you want reporting, CRM and planning under one login.

Red flags: nobody in the firm can own the field mapping between systems; the budget needs a published price before any sales call; or your CRM is not named as an integration by the vendor you are considering.

Where the handoffs break

For many teams, the hidden cost sits in the handoff rather than the license. A new prospect is typed into the CRM, typed again into the planning tool, and typed a third time into the proposal. US Tech Automations can be configured as a layer across that path, but the design below is a proposal, not a deployed workflow, and it depends on access you must confirm first.

The first proposed workflow starts when a new contact is created in the CRM. It pulls the name, household members and stated goals, maps them to the planning tool's intake fields, and creates a draft intake record flagged for advisor review. The output is that draft, a field-mapping log and an exception queue for records that fail validation. Prerequisites are CRM event or export access, planning-tool import or API access, and a named owner for the field map. Human review points are sign-off on the map before go-live, and an advisor's approval of every draft before anything reaches a client-facing plan.

The second proposed workflow starts when an advisor marks a plan as approved. It writes a dated record of the plan version, the assumptions used and the approving advisor to the firm's document store, then creates a follow-up task for the advisor's next review. Its output is a record and a task, not a client message. Prerequisites are a plan summary or report export from the planning tool and a document store with access controls. The human review point is a compliance owner who confirms the record format before any live use.

Illustrative assumptions, not measured results: a 25-advisor team creates 6 new prospect records per advisor each week, or 150 records. At 12 minutes of manual re-entry per record, that is 1,800 minutes, or 30 hours, a week. If a human-reviewed draft cut re-entry to 4 minutes per record, the weekly total would fall to 600 minutes, or 10 hours, freeing 20 hours. In a CRM that emits a contact.creation event, the workflow would start from that trigger, and HubSpot's documentation says failed deliveries are retried up to ten attempts over about 24 hours, according to HubSpot (2026). A brief outage on the receiving side should not drop the record, although the page does not promise delivery beyond that window. The same page warns that events can arrive out of order and that an event can occasionally be delivered more than once, so the workflow must compare timestamps and deduplicate before it creates a draft.

Build it yourself or configure it

The real alternative for many teams is stitching the path together in Zapier, Make or n8n, or writing custom code. Zapier's help center documents custom error handlers on most steps, except triggers and Paths steps. Handler runs appear in Zap history with a Stopped/Handled status. The same article says you cannot manually replay Zap runs that have error handlers, and that autoreplay for the Zap turns off once error handling is published (Zapier help). Those limits are real, so a self-built design needs its own replay plan.

Whatever tool you choose, the obligations are the same. Someone must watch run history and know who gets alerted when a record sticks. Someone must make duplicate events safe, since HubSpot's documentation warns that the same event can occasionally arrive twice. Someone must control which accounts and credentials the automations use, and someone must update the field maps when a vendor renames a field.

For a team of 25 advisors with one CRM and one planning tool, a self-built path may be enough if a staff member has the time to maintain it. What a US Tech Automations design could configure differently is the audit layer: a run log, an exception queue, approval steps and a written field map. Those are proposals with prerequisites (API or export access on both systems, named owners) and review points (mapping sign-off and a go-live review on your own records), and they should be confirmed against your own systems before go-live.

Decision checklist

• Choose the category: standalone planning engine or all-in-one stack.
• Get written quotes from eMoney, Orion Planning and Advyzon, using the same team size and term.
• Compare RightCapital and MoneyGuide at the same advisor count, including assistant seats and add-ons.
• Ask for permissions, plan archiving and workflow controls in writing.
• Map each handoff from CRM to planning to proposal, and mark which steps are manual.
• Name one owner for field mapping and one for exceptions before signing.
• Confirm the first-year commitment and cancellation terms in writing.

Glossary

• Goals-based planning: a plan built around named client goals and the odds of reaching them.

• Cash-flow planning: a model of income, spending, taxes and debt over time.

• Household record: the shared client file that links people, accounts and goals.

• Held-away assets: accounts at other custodians that a plan still counts.

• Quote-based pricing: no list price is published, so the cost comes from a sales conversation.

• Webhook: a message a system sends when an event happens, such as a new contact.

• Idempotency: a design rule so that a repeated event does not create a duplicate record.

• Human review point: a step where a person approves a draft before it changes a client record.

Questions buyers ask

Which planning platform should a large advisory team choose first?

No single platform is the default, so settle the category first and then compare the two vendors with published per-advisor prices against the three that are quote-based. Table 3 gives the published numbers, and the quote-based vendors should answer in writing for the same team size and term.

Do eMoney, Orion Planning or Advyzon publish prices?

No, none of the three shows a list price on the pages we opened. eMoney's pricing page lists packages without prices, Orion says pricing depends on firm size and configuration, and Advyzon asks prospects to request a demo.

Is RightCapital's Enterprise tier priced on the site?

No, the Enterprise option on RightCapital's pricing page reads Contact Sales. The three per-advisor plans have published prices, and the consolidated billing option noted above applies to groups with 10 or more advisor licenses.

Can a free automation tool replace a configured workflow?

Yes, for some teams, if one person owns error handling, replay and duplicate control. Zapier's error handlers work well for routing failures, but its documented limits on manual replay mean a self-built design needs its own recovery plan, as described in the do-it-yourself section above.

When should a team skip US Tech Automations?

Skip it when a native integration already covers your handoff, or when manual entry is only a few records a week. Three scenarios favor a simpler tool. First, your planning tool and CRM already have a native connection your staff trusts, and the remaining work is a short checklist. Second, you have one or two advisors, so a spreadsheet and the planning vendor's own intake form are enough. Third, nobody on your team can own field mapping and approval rules, and an automation layer without an owner adds risk.

Make the shortlist

Start with the category decision, then send the same team size and term to every vendor on the shortlist and compare written answers. Keep the handoff map open while you compare, because the platform with the deepest planning can still create the most re-entry. If the handoff is your bottleneck, see how US Tech Automations configures this, using your own CRM and planning tool as the starting point.