Schwab iRebal vs Orion Eclipse: Portfolio Rebalancing 2027

The short answer

Schwab iRebal vs Orion Eclipse for portfolio rebalancing is mainly a custody decision, not a feature contest. If your client accounts sit at Schwab, iRebal is the lower-friction option. If they are spread across several custodians, or you already run Orion's accounting, Eclipse is built for that broader setup.

TL;DR: Pick iRebal for a Schwab-custodied book that needs a tool with no separate fee on those accounts. Pick Eclipse for a multi-custodian practice that can wait for a written quote and plan a data migration.

Portfolio rebalancing is the process of trading holdings back to target weights so each account stays inside its tolerance bands. Both tools generate that trade list. They differ on where accounts must be held, how much you can see before you buy, and how much staff time the setup takes.

Neither product is discontinued in the sources reviewed, but ownership matters. iRebal came out of TD Ameritrade Institutional and now sits inside Schwab's advisor platform. Eclipse is not a separate company. It is the trading and rebalancing module inside Orion Advisor Solutions, which is majority-owned by the private equity firms Genstar Capital and TA Associates and employs more than 1,200 people, according to Wikipedia (2025 snapshot).

Key Takeaways

• Custody comes first. The free access reported for iRebal applies to Schwab-custodied accounts, so a mixed-custodian book does not get the same terms.

• Eclipse is built for multi-custodian trading, with orders sent to custodians over FIX connections, but Orion publishes no price for it.

• Tax tooling is documented unevenly. Eclipse lists harvesting alerts and wash-sale tracking, while the iRebal tax features we could verify come from an older review of the TD Ameritrade-era version.

• Only Eclipse shows direct indexing in the pages reviewed, with predefined models and sector, security and ESG limits.

• Budget for the quote and the migration, not just the license. Custody, trading and data-feed costs sit outside either rebalancer.

• An automation layer only works with a holdings export or API access and a named person who approves every trade list.

Who this is for

Choose iRebal if most of your accounts are at Schwab, you want rebalancing inside the Schwab environment, and you need no separate platform license on those accounts. Choose Eclipse if your accounts sit at more than one custodian, you run or plan to run Orion's portfolio accounting, you need SMA or direct indexing models with sector or ESG limits, and you can review a quote before you commit.

Red flags: for iRebal, most accounts held outside Schwab, a need for direct indexing, or a budget committee that needs a published price before it meets.

Red flags: for Eclipse, no plan to use Orion's accounting, a need for a list price in this budget cycle, or no staff member who can own a data migration.

How we evaluated these tools

This guide weights seven criteria. We put custody fit first because it decides whether a rebalancer can trade your accounts without manual exports. The weights are our judgment for a small financial services firm, not vendor data, so change them if your book differs. We checked each criterion against public vendor pages and independent coverage. Anything a vendor does not publish is marked as not published rather than estimated.

What the two tools do differently

Custody is the sharpest split. The SmartAsset guide reports iRebal as "Free for accounts custodied with Schwab" and lists Schwab as its only custodian, according to SmartAsset (updated July 23, 2026). Eclipse sits on the other side of that split. Orion's Eclipse page describes "Multi-Custodial Trading" and orders sent to custodians "via FIX connections," but it does not name the custodians it supports. Ask for that list in writing before you assume coverage.

Tax features are the next split, and the evidence is uneven. The most detailed public description of the TD Ameritrade-era iRebal comes from a 2017 review. It lists manually ranked asset location, tax-loss harvesting with thresholds, and wash-sale avoidance that includes substitute securities, according to Kitces (2017). Treat that as a list of questions for Schwab, not a current specification. Eclipse's page is newer. It describes automatic alerts for tax-loss harvesting opportunities and tracking of when wash-sale periods end, and it describes alerts rather than automatic harvesting trades.

Direct indexing is where Eclipse is most specific. Eclipse direct indexing: 5 predefined model portfolios according to InvestmentNews (2019). Eclipse's page describes an Integrated SMA Portfolio Optimizer that accommodates sector, security and ESG restrictions. The sources reviewed do not describe direct indexing in iRebal.

Household rules are Eclipse's strongest published claim. The page says asset location can "decrease your number of trade orders" and supports models that include separately managed accounts, custom security sets and substitute assets. For iRebal, the redesign coverage quotes one user saying the tool gets advisors most of the way there on day one. That is anecdote, not measured evidence.

What each tool costs before you can sign

Pricing checked November 13, 2026. For accounts custodied at Schwab, the SmartAsset entry for iRebal reads "Free for accounts custodied with Schwab," according to SmartAsset (updated July 23, 2026). Multi-custodian use is a different case, and the figures for it are older.

Multi-custodian server license: $20,000 a year according to Kitces (2017), for firms with less than $450 million in AUM.

Before the redesign coverage, the standalone installation cost advisors tens of thousands of dollars a year, according to WealthManagement.com (2021). Those figures are historical. Schwab's own iRebal page did not load during our research, so confirm current Schwab terms in writing before you budget.

Orion's Eclipse page publishes no dollar price, so Eclipse is quote-based. Ask for the quote with the custodian list, the FIX setup for each custodian and the migration scope in the same document.

Total cost is larger than the license line. Custody fees, trading costs, data feeds and staff time sit outside either rebalancer's price, so put them in both columns of your comparison before you choose.

Published figures behind this comparison

Every number in this guide is listed below, so you can check each one against its source.

Each row is sourced in the section where it appears. The Schwab entry comes from SmartAsset, the server price and firm threshold from Kitces, the time-savings claim from Orion's Eclipse page, the models from InvestmentNews, the token lifetime from Orion's developer guide, and the rollout target from Financial Planning. Treat the older rows as history, and the 2026 SmartAsset entry plus Orion's written quote process as the figures a buyer can act on today.

Where the time goes: a worked example

Illustrative scenario, not a measured result: a hypothetical firm with 412 household accounts reviews drift by hand each month. At 6 minutes per household, that review is 412 × 6 = 2,472 minutes, or 41.2 hours a month. At 2 minutes per household it is 412 × 2 = 824 minutes, or 13.7 hours. If the firm's own system pulls holdings through Orion's API instead of file exports, Orion's developer guide says each access_token lasts 10 hours by default, according to Orion Developers (undated guide). A job that runs every 4 hours therefore needs a fresh token about twice a day, because one token covers three runs, which is 60 token requests in a 30-day month. The token math is a cost to plan for, but the hours that matter are the review hours, and the saving depends on how much of that time your team actually spends.

Manual review time for the same 412 accounts, at four review speeds:

Use this table to decide whether drift review is worth automating at all. If your team already reviews in under 2 minutes per household, a workflow may add little.

Where a proposed US Tech Automations workflow fits

The pain sits in the monthly drift review and in cash planning, which is where a proposed workflow would fit. US Tech Automations can configure the two steps below as a design for your rules. They are proposed, not a live deployment, and nothing here describes a customer result.

Drift review workflow (proposed). Trigger: the first business day of each month, or a manual run. Action: read each household's current weights from a holdings export or API feed, compare them with your tolerance bands, and build a draft list of out-of-tolerance accounts. Output: a task in your CRM with the list attached and each account's trade direction. Prerequisites: a holdings export from your rebalancer or custodian, or API credentials requested from Orion, plus a named owner for the feed. Review point: the advisor approves every trade list before anything reaches a custodian, and the workflow never places orders.

Cash and distribution check (proposed). Trigger: a deposit, withdrawal or scheduled distribution posts in your accounting system. Action: compare the account's cash balance with the cash bucket set for that purpose and flag shortfalls against the next trade date. Output: a note on the household record and a reconciliation line for operations. Prerequisites: cash balances and bucket targets must be readable by the workflow. Review point: the operations lead confirms each shortfall before any trade is drafted. If you choose Eclipse, its unlimited cash buckets may cover this natively, which would leave the workflow as a reporting layer.

The usual alternative is to stitch these steps together in Zapier, Make or n8n, or to build them in-house. Those tools can keep run histories, retries, error branches and audit evidence when they are configured. You still have to design and own idempotency, so a rerun does not create duplicate tasks, along with escalation paths, access controls and maintenance when an API changes. A proposed US Tech Automations design would specify those pieces up front for your rules: a retry setting, an error branch that alerts a named person, a run log, and role-based access, with the same data prerequisites described above.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations

A simpler setup wins in three cases. If every account sits at Schwab and iRebal already produces the trade list you approve, a separate workflow adds a step without adding a decision. If your book is small and held at one custodian, a spreadsheet drift check and a calendar reminder may be enough. If your rebalancer or custodian offers no export or API access, a workflow has nothing reliable to read, so fix the data source before you add anything.

Vendor profiles

Schwab iRebal

Best fit: firms whose client accounts sit at Schwab and that want rebalancing without a separate platform license on those accounts. This profile relies on trade press and the SmartAsset entry because Schwab's own iRebal page did not load during our research.

Limitations: free access depends on Schwab custody, and the multi-custodian path has been a paid server version in the past. The 2021 coverage said Schwab Advisor Services customers would wait until early 2023 for the redesign, according to Financial Planning (2021). Direct indexing is not described in the pages we reviewed.

Implementation: for a Schwab-custodied firm, the work is likely to be confirming eligibility, mapping your household rules and setting an approval step, rather than building an integration. Confirm those details with Schwab's advisor services team, because its current pages were not available to us.

Evidence to check: the SmartAsset entry and the 2021 trade-press coverage cited above, then Schwab's current iRebal terms.

Orion Eclipse

Best fit: firms trading across several custodians, or firms already on Orion's portfolio accounting, that want household-level trading, SMA or direct indexing models and unlimited cash buckets. Orion says Eclipse sends orders to custodians via FIX connections, which matters for straight-through processing.

Limitations: Orion publishes no price, and its usage claims are vendor-reported. Orion-reported: half of users finish tasks 35-50% faster according to Orion (2018 survey). The page cites a 2018 TechValidate survey for that claim. The full developer reference is login-gated, so an API build needs Orion credentials before anything else.

Implementation: expect a larger project than a Schwab-custodied iRebal setup. It includes a written quote, custodian-by-custodian confirmation of FIX connectivity, a data migration from your current system, and staff time to set household rules. Orion's page does not publish a timeline, so ask for one in writing.

Evidence to check: Orion's Eclipse page, the InvestmentNews report on direct indexing, and Orion's developer guide for token handling.

Common mistakes

• Treating "free" as the whole cost. Custody, trading and data-feed charges sit outside the rebalancer's license.

• Assuming one tool covers every custodian. Get each vendor's custodian list in writing.

• Budgeting from older pricing. Historical figures in this guide describe earlier versions of both products.

• Buying a quote without a migration plan. Ask for export formats, the FIX setup and the staff hours required.

• Letting automation place trades. Keep a named person approving every trade list.

Decision checklist

• Count your household accounts by custodian before you request any quote.

• Confirm in writing whether iRebal covers any non-Schwab accounts you hold today.

• Request Eclipse's custodian list, the FIX setup for each custodian and the migration scope.

• Test the tax tools you need, such as loss-harvesting alerts, wash-sale tracking and asset location.

• Name one person who approves every trade list, whichever tool you choose.

Frequently asked questions

Is iRebal free for every advisor?

No. The free access in the SmartAsset entry applies to accounts custodied with Schwab, and an older trade-press review described a paid server version for multi-custodian use.

Does Orion Eclipse publish a price?

No. Orion's Eclipse page shows no dollar price, so Eclipse is quote-based, and you should request the quote in writing.

Which tool handles direct indexing?

Eclipse does, through its SMA portfolio optimizer. The sources reviewed do not describe direct indexing in iRebal.

Can a firm use both tools?

The sources reviewed do not describe running both side by side. Ask each vendor how holdings and trades would move between the two before you commit to either.

Is Eclipse a separate company from Orion?

No. Eclipse is the trading and rebalancing module inside Orion Advisor Solutions, which is majority-owned by Genstar Capital and TA Associates.

Did this guide test either product?

No. This is a buyer's guide built from public vendor pages, trade press and independent reviews, and it reports no hands-on testing.

Conclusion

Start with custody. If your client accounts sit at Schwab, confirm iRebal's current eligibility and free-access terms in writing, then check the tax and rule features you need against the lists above. If your accounts span several custodians or you already use Orion's accounting, request an Eclipse quote that names the custodians, the FIX setup and the migration scope. If you want a proposed drift-review or cash-check workflow on top of either tool, see how US Tech Automations configures this.