Orion vs MoneyGuidePro: Planning or Portfolio First? 2027

TL;DR: Choose Orion if your firm wants one system for planning, portfolio accounting, trading, rebalancing and billing, or an outsourced portfolio program. Choose MoneyGuidePro if the plan itself is the bottleneck and portfolio operations already run on a system you plan to keep. The two overlap more on planning than their positioning suggests, so the deciding question is what sits behind the plan.

How we evaluated

We compared the two products using the public material each vendor publishes, checked against trade-body and regulatory sources for the market context. We did not run a demo, a trial or a reference call, so anything a sales team would have to confirm is listed as a question for the vendor, not as a finding. For Orion, the primary source is its turnkey asset management program (TAMP) page. Its planning detail came only from a reseller listing, which is secondary. For MoneyGuidePro, the primary source is its public FAQ page, which covers plan types, features, sharing and licensing.

Vendor-reported statistics such as client retention rates, survey placements and rankings are self-reported and not dated against an independent source, so this article leaves them out. Pricing checked October 19, 2026: neither the Orion TAMP page nor the MoneyGuidePro FAQ gives a dollar price for either product, so this article prints none.

The market context matters because it sets the stakes for any switch. According to CFP Board, 107,529 CFP® professionals held the designation at the end of 2025, and the count rose 4.3% over the prior year. CFP professionals reached 107,529 at year-end 2025. The same release reports that 11,037 people sat for the CFP exam in 2025, and according to CFP Board, that was a 5.7% increase on 2024.

Sources: CFP Board release dated January 15, 2026; Investment Adviser Association and Comply snapshot dated June 3, 2026.

According to the Investment Adviser Association, the number of advisers rose to 16,544 in 2025, and assets under management grew 22.3%. The IAA and Comply counted 16,544 advisers in 2025. That count is an industry survey rather than a regulator's register, so use it as scale, not as a precise census.

The regulatory clock matters more than the category size. According to the SEC, a firm must notify affected customers as soon as practicable and no later than 30 days after a breach, and the amended Regulation S-P gives larger entities 18 months to comply and smaller entities 24 months. Customer breach notice is due within 30 days. Smaller entities had a fixed date, and according to JD Supra, they had to comply by June 3, 2026, after larger entities were required to comply by December 3, 2025. Smaller advisers had to comply by June 3, 2026.

Sources: SEC press release 2024-58 (adopted May 16, 2024; 30-day customer notice; 18 and 24 months); JD Supra summary (December 3, 2025 and June 3, 2026 dates; 72-hour provider alert; 1.5 billion dollar threshold).

Who Orion is for

Orion describes itself as a single system covering client relationships, planning, portfolio accounting, trading and compliance, and that breadth is the reason to consider it. Its planning tool, as a reseller listing describes it, is aimed at goals-based and cash-flow plans that link investment performance to client goals, with behavioral finance elements and customizable reporting. That is the only planning detail we could read, and it is secondhand, so a firm should test the planning module on its own client cases before relying on it.

The clearer fit is Orion's turnkey asset management program. Orion Portfolio Solutions, as its TAMP page describes it, offers proposal generation, trading and rebalancing, portfolio accounting and reporting, fee billing, financial planning and a client portal with a mobile app. Investment options include third-party strategists, UMA portfolios and custom indexing, and the page also describes an advisor-as-portfolio-manager option. Onboarding runs through a dedicated investment specialist. The page names Schwab, Fidelity and Pershing as custodians "among others," and says its Redtail CRM integration is fully integrated. It targets independent advisors, RIA firms, broker-dealers and advisory businesses that want portfolio management outsourced.

Orion is a poor fit for a planning-first practice that builds portfolios on a separate system and wants only a planning deliverable. That firm would pay for operating layers it does not use. The TAMP is also priced as a basis-point fee on assets, so the cost scales with the book, and the page gives no figure to plan against.

Who MoneyGuidePro is for

MoneyGuidePro is a web-based, goal-based planning platform sold by Envestnet. Its FAQ describes Financial Plans with risk management, Asset Allocation Plans, and Lifetime Income Plans built on a Monte Carlo simulation of a single income stream. Goals can be single or multiple, funded in priority order, with the interactions between goals shown in the results. That design suits a planner who wants a client to see how a college goal competes with a retirement goal.

The module list is wide. Goal modules cover college planning, retirement planning split into expense periods, post-retirement spending that separates basic living costs from discretionary spending, and periodic goals. Asset entry covers employer retirement plans, IRAs, Coverdell accounts, 529 plans, a stock options module and deferred compensation. The analysis side offers what-if scenarios, Monte Carlo simulation and stress tests that run historical back-tests, bad-timing cases and asset-class sensitivity. Goal funding strategies include immediate annuities, early-distribution strategies and net unrealized appreciation. Insurance needs analysis covers life, disability and long-term care, and net worth and estate planning includes trust and gifting illustrations.

Reporting is the other main draw. Advisers can customize report templates, keep a report history and control client printing. The sharing feature lets an adviser work with a client or a colleague in either View Only or Update All mode.

MoneyGuidePro is a poor fit for a firm whose bottleneck is portfolio operations. Its public pages describe planning and asset allocation, not trading, rebalancing or portfolio accounting, and they name no custodian, CRM or portfolio integrations. The FAQ also says license counts are governed by a separate terms page, so the seat question sits outside the FAQ.

Side by side

The table sets the two products against each other on the capabilities their pages describe. "Not published" means the page we read does not say. It does not mean the feature is absent.

Sources: Orion TAMP page and MoneyGuidePro FAQ page, both read October 19, 2026.

Pros and cons

Orion

• Pro: It covers the operating stack in one described system, from proposals through trading, accounting and billing.

• Pro: It offers an outsourced TAMP for firms that do not want to build portfolio operations themselves.

• Pro: It names its custodians and its CRM integration, so a buyer has specific items to test.

• Con: The planning module is hard to judge from public material, which is thin and partly secondhand.

• Con: The fee is a basis-point charge on assets, so the cost grows with the book. Get the schedule in writing.

• Con: The TAMP page leans on awards and survey placements, and its disclaimer says providers paid a sponsorship fee for the ranking survey. Treat those placements as marketing, not as an independent verdict.

MoneyGuidePro

• Pro: The planning modules are deep, covering goal funding strategies, insurance, estate illustrations and stress tests.

• Pro: Its stress tests show how a plan can fail, not only what happens on average.

• Pro: Reporting and sharing are built for client-facing work, with advisor-customizable report templates and View Only sharing.

• Con: Trading, rebalancing and portfolio accounting do not appear in the public material.

• Con: No integrations are named, and no migration process is described.

• Con: Add-on modules such as Dash, Wealth Studios and Client Portal & Aggregation appear in the navigation, but the FAQ does not describe their scope.

• Con: No dollar price is published on the pages we read.

What switching actually costs

Switching costs fall into three buckets: data, retraining and time. Neither vendor's public pages describe a migration timeline, so any month-count a buyer hears should come from the vendor in writing, tied to named milestones.

Data is the first and largest bucket. Client records, holdings, goal sets, plan assumptions and report templates all need a path from the old tool to the new one. Assume plans will not move over intact. Ask the vendor to convert a handful of real client cases before signing, then check each assumption by hand, including inflation, return and tax settings.

Retraining is the second bucket. Planners relearn goal entry, asset classes and report layouts, and the cost rises with the number of planners and support staff. A planning-first firm feels this most, because the plan is the thing clients see.

The third bucket is compliance. Under Regulation S-P, a firm needs written policies for overseeing service providers that can access customer information, including due diligence and monitoring. A vendor change means a new service provider holding customer data, so the diligence file should be complete before the first client record moves.

Parts of the surrounding work can move in parallel. US Tech Automations could set up a proposed, configurable workflow tied to the migration itself: it would queue a handful of real client cases for conversion and flag each assumption, including inflation, return and tax settings, for a planner to check by hand. A person would approve every converted case before any client record moves, because a planning change should not also change who signs off on a client-facing plan.

The client-service side has its own approval gate. US Tech Automations describes a sample support workflow in which an AI agent drafts replies from help documents, CRM data and order status, and a person approves, edits or rejects each draft before it sends. A migration should keep the same gate on any client message it touches.

What to ask for instead of a price

• Licenses: The number of seats, how the MoneyGuidePro terms page counts them, and whether any planner is priced separately.

• Modules: For Orion, which TAMP, planning and billing components are in the quote. For MoneyGuidePro, which add-ons are in the base subscription.

• Asset base: For Orion's TAMP, the basis-point schedule and exactly what counts as assets under management.

• Migration: The conversion scope, who performs the work, the parallel-run period and the cutover date.

• What usually drives the number: Headcount, the number of client households and assets, the modules selected, and the conversion and integration work.

The verdict

These two are close, and saying so is the honest answer. Both can produce a goals-based plan with Monte Carlo analysis and a client-ready report. The difference is what sits behind the plan.

Pick Orion if the firm needs one system for planning, portfolio accounting, trading, rebalancing and billing, or if it wants an outsourced TAMP. Pick MoneyGuidePro if planning is the constraint, portfolio operations already run on a system you plan to keep, and you need the stress-testing and reporting depth its FAQ describes.

A planning-first practice that keeps its own portfolios should pick MoneyGuidePro, because Orion's operating stack would be more platform than the firm uses. A firm that wants outsourced portfolio management, or wants to retire a separate accounting tool, should pick Orion, because MoneyGuidePro leaves that work to another vendor.

US Tech Automations does not sell planning or portfolio software, so it is not a third option in this comparison. It is a workflow vendor for the work around whichever platform a firm chooses.

Source: this article's reading of the Orion TAMP page and MoneyGuidePro FAQ, October 19, 2026.

FAQs

Which is cheaper, Orion or MoneyGuidePro?

Neither product's public pages give a dollar figure, so this article cannot say which is cheaper. Ask each vendor for a written quote covering the modules, seats and conversion work you need, then compare the two quotes line by line.

Does MoneyGuidePro include trading and rebalancing?

Its public pages do not describe trading, rebalancing or portfolio accounting. Treat those functions as absent until the vendor confirms them in writing.

Can Orion replace a planning tool I already use?

Orion can, if the firm wants its planning module, but the public material on that module is thin and partly secondhand. Test it on real client cases before deciding.

Should I plan for a multi-stage project when I switch?

Yes, and neither vendor publishes a migration timeline on the pages we read, so the schedule has to come from a written conversion plan with named milestones and a parallel-run period.

Does a vendor switch change compliance obligations?

Yes. A new planning vendor is a new service provider for customer data, so the firm's written oversight and due diligence must cover it before client records move.

Can an AI drafting tool replace either planning platform?

No. Drafting tools write client communications from plan output, but they do not produce the plan.

Key Takeaways

• Orion is the broader operating stack, and MoneyGuidePro is the deeper planning tool, as their public pages describe them.

• Neither public page gives a dollar price, so the next step is a written quote, not a comparison of numbers.

• Customer breach notice is due within 30 days under the SEC's amended Regulation S-P, and smaller firms had to comply by June 3, 2026.

• Neither vendor publishes a migration timeline, so ask for a written conversion plan with milestones.

• If you need an outsourced TAMP or trading in one system, Orion is the clearer fit. If planning is the constraint, MoneyGuidePro is.

If the workflow around the platform is the bottleneck, see the workflow automation overview.

For related reading, see Orion alternatives for financial advisors, Orion vs Addepar and MoneyGuidePro vs RightCapital.