Pick ‘n’ mix platform strategies persist as Model-b seen as a trade-off in latest NextWealth report

The shape of the adviser platform market is being moulded less by headline model shifts and more by execution, according to NextWealth’s When the Dust Settles: Platforms After the Shakeout report.

NextWealth’s 2025 adviser research shows that after a period of momentum behind adviser-as-platform and Model-b propositions, adoption patterns levelled off. That stability does not mean competition has eased, the report shows. However, now the dust has settled on that initial shakeout of the market, it is clear that change is being driven less by headline model shifts and more by how effectively platforms support migration, adviser adoption, data and integration, and the operating models of advice firms at scale.

The findings show that when it comes to Model-b it is a trade-off, not a straight upgrade. Firms report clear wins with the model, such as onboarding, lean operations, client experience. Modern interfaces and operational efficiencies are clear gains, however they may require advice firms to accept limitations in breadth or maturity of functionality. The trade-off in functional gaps means firms are often retaining third-party platforms for clients with more complex needs.

Platform launches are rarely a like-for-like replacement of existing third-party platforms, NextWealth argues. “Firms are making deliberate trade-offs, often segmenting by client type or use case. This helps explain why many firms retain third-party platforms alongside new ones, and why a multi-platform strategy is the likely end-state for most large firms rather than wholesale replacement,” says When the Dust Settles: Platforms After the Shakeout report author and associate research director at NextWealth, Chanelle Paynter.

Multi-platform strategies underpinned by tightened panels

While the findings show that the adviser platform market is not converging on a single dominant model, it is nonetheless clear that, post-shakeout, firms are becoming more intentional. They are matching platform strategy to firm type (planning-led vs consolidator) and increasingly segmenting by client type (clients with simpler needs vs clients with more complex needs).

“The practical result is a durable matrix of platform roles rather than a single platform decision, where different platforms are selected to do different jobs inside the same firm,” says Paynter.

“For third-party platforms, the risk isn’t simply that large firms become platform operators. It is that these firms are tightening platform panels, standardising processes, and becoming more deliberate about where new business flows. Platform ownership is a tool for integration and control of the client journey. It is not, and rarely ever was, a pursuit of margin. The result is a market where multi-platform strategies persist.”

Future proofing for the next generation of clients

Additionally, where firms are looking to launch a platform expected gains are focused on being better able to serve lower value clients where tighter integration and straight-through processing could materially improve efficiency.

“As a third-party platform this highlights both a challenge and opportunity. Many firms are drawn to model-b not simply to capture more economics, but because they believe it gives them a better chance of solving for efficiency, client experience, and lower value clients. Third-party platforms that can demonstrate a credible answer to these same needs are better placed to retain relationships and compete effectively against the model-b proposition,” says Paynter.

Nascent White-label plus platform model requires careful handling

The NextWealth research also reveals the emergence of a new variant of platform model: White-label plus. Interviews with providers and financial planning firms, however, show marked differences in understanding on what this new model looks like in practice.  Some interpretations – such as taking a fee for relatively light touch work like reporting, while the client contract remains with the third-party platform – have the potential to raise a regulatory red flag.

“At this stage, white-label plus is an emerging commercial concept rather than an established market model. It remains to be seen whether it develops into a durable proposition or is constrained by regulatory expectations. Any fee arrangement must be proportionate to the work being performed. With Consumer Duty expectations in focus, firms and platforms exploring this model should ensure they can robustly evidence the value being delivered, before regulators ask them to.” says Paynter.

For further information, visit the NextWealth report webpage.