The core functionality of platforms is the same as it’s always been: to provide access to wrappers, buy investments, hold them, sell them again and report on them. All platforms do these basic functions to an acceptable standard, evidenced by all platforms having AUM. So Rich Mayor, Senior Analyst at the lang cat is asking what separates a platform used for administrative purposes from one an adviser values?
Research from our State of the Advice Nation (SOTAN) and State of the Platform Nation (SOTPN) reports has 22 years of data to draw on to answer this question.
Firstly, there’s an awkward truth in which we find advisers don’t put much value on platforms wholesale when considering them within their tech stack. When we asked advisers to rate different elements of their tech, CRM and AI tools were most valued, with platforms and providers sitting about last.
But if the research also shows 80% of client wealth is managed on a platform, how can this be the case?
It’s important to note that while platforms aren’t themselves valued all that highly, the satisfaction levels with a firm’s primary and secondary platforms of choice are strong. When speaking about their primary and secondary choice, satisfaction is high, and that’s been the case for years of collecting this data point.
Conversely, when we pose the hypothetical of swapping a piece of the tech stack with a magic wand, free from repercussions, back-office systems are consistently the cog replaced. It’s something typically chosen early in a firm’s existence, then life happens, and things change; the business evolves, workarounds emerge, and Pareto dominates the ‘AOB?’ parts of meetings when everyone just wants a sandwich.
In real life though, you can’t pause your business, swap out the plumbing and wiring of your firm, then replace it. It’s a huge job; one I consider the equivalent of a platform re-platforming.
For my money, a main reason for this disconnect is… Disconnectivity. I don’t think that’s a word, but as an industry that hasn’t stopped us before. What I mean is the flow of data, mainly between back-offices and third-party platforms and providers.
There’s all the normal-but-probably-shouldn’t-be-in-2026 stuff like re-keying applications, but the market has come a long way there. A byproduct of consolidation in the IFA market is that the commercials of building and maintaining these integrations is more viable – and small firms using the same tech as larger firms benefit too.
Besides platforms and back-office providers shaking hands and sharing data, we’ve also got folks like Zero-Key joining the dots, and several smaller firms managing API connections in-house. Most say it’s manageable with consistent attention, but that’s another hat for those at smaller firms to put on top of several others.
The integrations, however, are far more available for getting new business onboard than getting data out again. Frustration around the latter is growing; it’s the main thing firms told us they wanted platforms and providers to be better at in 2026 and beyond. Some of this is stuff like helping firms complete FCA requests – most suggested they lose about a week annually to these – but also to help with the evolving world of financial planning, and namely tax planning.
One aspect of tax planning we investigated in SOTPN was CGT. We found reporting in specific scenarios for CGT planning can be wildly inconsistent. If a GIA is re-registered from one place to another, how are book costs transferred? Are they just the price at the time of transfer? Does the destination work with the origin to find it out? Is it left to the adviser? What happens if an MPS rebalance in a GIA triggers CGT?
You get the gist; advisers rarely experience the same processes across the different platforms they use. But platforms are often the single source of truth and advisers need them to act like it.
Currently, the reasons for valuing a platform or provider come down to one thing: service. Alongside price, it’s comfortably the most important thing for a firm when choosing the place for the bulk of their clients’ assets. When asked why they’ve stopped using a platform or provider, the overwhelming reason is poor service. Firms are hardly ever drawn to new functionality but will be pushed away due to service not fitting their needs.
What ‘good service’ looks like is also subjective. Good service to one firm could mean a dedicated service team, or a close BDM relationship. For others, an entirely digital platform, with little or no touchpoints. Thankfully, there’s a rich variation across the platform market, and better data available for due diligence analysis too. Moving business is easier than it’s ever been (which’s not to say it’s easy), so finding a home for your client segments and your firm is subsequently simpler.
Given client segmentation across firms is more refined and robust in the post-Consumer Duty world we inhabit, finding the right home(s) for your clients’ wealth is more robust too. There will, of course, be edge cases to this, where perhaps a part of the client’s overall portfolio will remain with a platform on a transactional, administrative basis. Some exceptional product, feature or pricing deal that means it negates moving them. Not yet at least.
Naturally, it’s more unusual for a user to rate occasionally used platforms highly. There’s less familiarity with the processes and navigation around the platform, and the chance of bespoke servicing teams is lower, unless there’s a platform rap sheet of important things going wrong (we call them ‘moments of truth’ – think tax-free cash payments, bereavement, etc.) and especially for a high-value client.
But these administrative, transactional relationships with a platform are relationships nonetheless, and an opportunity for a platform to build trust by making the system navigation easy and having nice humans to support it.
About Rich Mayor
Rich Mayor is the Senior Analyst in the Insight Team at the lang cat. He writes the consultancy’s Platform Market Scorecard and State of the Platform Nation reports. Rich has nearly 20 years’ experience working with or at platforms and advice firms.
