Family Office Software for European Families: How to Choose

A family with €20–100M, four private banks, a holding company and a trust searches for family office software and finds the same page again and again: a “best of” list written by a vendor that ranks itself first. The prices are mostly missing. None of the lists asks which banks the family actually uses, or where its data would be stored. This guide ranks nobody. It gives six criteria, a table of what each vendor states on its own site, dated, and the test for when a spreadsheet is still enough.

PWA receives no fee from any vendor. We sell no software; our work is paid by the family, and only by the family. PWA does not manage money, hold mandates, take commissions or give regulated investment, tax or legal advice.

Which family office software fits a family under €100 million?

No single product fits every family under €100 million. The right family office software is the one that receives your own custodians by direct feed, models your entities with look-through, states its hosting region and GDPR transfer basis, quotes a written annual cost in euros, gives an implementation time in weeks, and names who maintains the data each month.

A platform automates consolidated reporting: one total, one date, one currency, across every bank and entity. It does not decide what goes into that total. The family still owns the inventory, the structure chart and the question of who signs the number each month. Software chosen before those three exist tends to be chosen on demo quality, and demos are built on the vendor’s data, not yours. When we review a family’s reporting set-up, we start from the custodian list and the structure chart, not from the platform.

Six criteria for choosing family office software in Europe

Most comparison pages are written for a US family office with staff, a single reporting currency and US custodians. A European family under €100M usually has none of those. It has a Swiss bank, a Portuguese or Spanish bank, perhaps a UK or Luxembourg account, two currencies, and no one employed to reconcile. The six criteria below follow from that.

Start by writing down every custodian, the bank or institution that holds the family’s securities in safekeeping, and every account type. Then send the same list and the same six questions to every vendor on the shortlist. Answers in writing make vendors comparable; answers in a demo do not.

Criterion 2 assumes the structure chart is settled. If it is not, if nobody can say which entity owns which account, fix that first; it is a wealth planning and structuring question, and no platform answers it for you.

Feed counts are marketing until they name your bank

Every vendor publishes a number. On 6 October 2026, Masttro stated “700+ direct custodian connections”; Altoo ”> 500 custodian bank data connections and access to > 3,000 non-custody banks”; Landytech “500+ custodian feeds globally” and “10,000+ connections through open banking”; Asora “200+ custodians”; Aleta “+100 bank integrations”; QPLIX “>100 interfaces, to banks, accounting software and more”; PandaConnect “over 60 banks and custodians”. Addepar says it “integrates with hundreds of global custodians, banks and administrators”. Kubera connects through aggregators, which it names: Plaid, Mastercard, MX, Yodlee, Akoya, SnapTrade, Lean, Akahu and Salt Edge.

These numbers are not comparable. One vendor counts custodians, another counts connections, a third counts interfaces that include accounting software. An open-banking connection to a current account is not a custodian feed of securities positions. What a feed is, and what a bank can send, is covered in consolidated reporting across multiple banks; the point here is narrower. A count of 700 is worth nothing if your Lisbon bank is not in it, and a count of 60 is enough if all four of your banks are.

Two vendors go further than a count. Asora’s pricing page says it will “guarantee a connection with any bank or custodian that has an available data feed”. Aleta’s comparison page says it “guarantees connectivity” and will build a missing feed at its own cost. Both are promises worth having in the contract, bank by bank, rather than on a web page.

Hosting and GDPR in plain terms

Chapter V of the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) governs transfers of personal data outside the EU. Article 44 sets the principle; Article 45 allows transfers on the basis of an adequacy decision; Article 46 allows transfers subject to appropriate safeguards. For a family choosing software, that comes down to three routes.

• Adequacy. The European Commission lists the countries to which personal data can flow “without any further safeguard being necessary”. Switzerland is on the list (Commission Decision 2000/518/EC of 26 July 2000), as is the United Kingdom. Masttro and Altoo both state Swiss hosting, so a transfer to them rests on this route. The United Arab Emirates is not on the list, which matters for families split between Portugal or Spain and Dubai.
• The EU-US Data Privacy Framework. The United States is on the list only for commercial organisations that participate in the Framework (Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1795 of 10 July 2023). Check that the vendor’s contracting entity is certified, not only its parent. The General Court upheld the decision in Latombe v Commission (T-553/23) on 3 September 2025; an appeal was lodged with the Court of Justice on 31 October 2025 (C-703/25 P). We found no Court of Justice judgment on that appeal on the date of writing. A framework under appeal is a reason to ask what the vendor’s fallback is.
• Standard Contractual Clauses. Where there is no adequacy, the transfer needs safeguards, usually the clauses in Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 of 4 June 2021. Kubera states that its third-party processor agreements incorporate the 2021 clauses; Addepar’s privacy policy names Standard Contractual Clauses among its safeguards.

Ask for the sub-processor list as well. Article 28(2) says a processor “shall not engage another processor without prior specific or general written authorisation of the controller”. The list tells you which cloud provider, data aggregator and support centre will touch the family’s data, and in which country.

Family office reporting software compared: what each vendor states

Alphabetical, not a ranking. Every cell is what the vendor’s own site said on 6 October 2026; where it says nothing, the cell says “not stated”. PWA receives no fee from any vendor.

Sources for every cell are listed at the end of this page. A vendor may say more to a prospect than on its site; that is exactly what the six written questions are for.

Why this is not a best family office software list

A ranking needs a family. The same platform can be right for a family whose four banks it already receives and wrong for a family whose Portuguese bank it has never seen. Several of the most visible “best family office software” lists are published by vendors, and each of those places itself first. We left out stars, “best for” labels and affiliate links for the same reason: the table above is a starting point for your own written questions, not an answer.

Masttro vs Addepar on your criteria

On the vendors’ own statements, the two differ most on criterion 3. Masttro states a private Azure instance hosted in Switzerland; for an EU family, the transfer rests on the Swiss adequacy decision. Addepar refers to “secure AWS-hosted environments” without naming a region on the pages we checked, participates in the Data Privacy Framework, and says in its privacy policy that personal information may be transferred to countries “such as the United States”. Neither publishes a price. Masttro states a flat annual subscription that is not based on AUM; Addepar states nothing on its pricing basis. On feeds, Masttro gives a number and Addepar says “hundreds”. Neither number tells you whether your banks are included. The answer to “masttro vs addepar” is the one that comes back, in writing, against your own custodian list.

Addepar alternatives, and Altoo vs Masttro

Families searching for Addepar alternatives are usually asking one of three things: a European hosting region, a published price, or a lighter implementation. On the vendors’ own statements, Masttro and Altoo state Swiss hosting; Aleta states an EU data-residency option; Asora, Aleta and Kubera publish prices; Asora states four weeks and Aleta four to eight weeks for implementation.

Altoo and Masttro are often compared because both state Swiss hosting. They differ on fee basis: Altoo’s own 2023 article says it bases fees on the number of banking relationships rather than net worth, and describes clients from CHF 20M to over CHF 1bn; Masttro states an annual subscription, not AUM-based, with custom pricing. On Altoo’s basis, the number of banks drives the fee, not the size of the wealth; the site does not say what a relationship costs. Neither is better in general. The better one is the one that receives your custodians by direct feed and models your entities.

Family office software pricing: what each vendor publishes

Of the nine vendors in the table, three publish a price. Everything below is quoted as the vendor states it, in the currency it uses, on 6 October 2026.

• Kubera: Essentials at $250 a year; Black at $2,500 a year, which Kubera describes as “for complex finances and multi-entity wealth”. Data is stored in AWS US East, and connections run through aggregators.
• Asora: “from €800, $900, or £700 per month”. Prices are tiered “by the net worth under management”, in nine brackets from $30M to above $1B. Asora’s own example for the $50–100M bracket is $15,600 a year ($1,300 a month billed annually) plus a $3,900 one-time implementation fee, with 20 custodian accounts included. More accounts cost $3,600 a year per pack of 20; a private cloud adds $4,000 a year.
• Aleta: “starting at $1,000/mo” on its Masttro comparison page (updated 25 June 2026) and ”~$1,000 / month” on its Asora comparison page (13 January 2026). Its home page says pricing “is not based on assets under management”.
• On request: Masttro (annual subscription, not AUM-based), Altoo (fee basis: number of banking relationships, per its 2023 article), Landytech (feeds, legal entities, portfolios, assets and users), Addepar, QPLIX and PandaConnect (no basis stated).

To see what a published price means in practice, take Asora’s own numbers for a family in the $50–100M bracket with 30 custodian accounts: $15,600 for the licence, $3,600 for a second pack of accounts and $3,900 for implementation, or $23,100 in year one before any private cloud. That is arithmetic on the vendor’s list, not a quote. Your quote will depend on your accounts.

Third-party estimates for the vendors that publish nothing circulate on comparison sites. We do not repeat them. The vendor has not stated them, and the vendor is the only party that can be held to a number.

Costs beyond the licence

The licence is the visible line. Three others decide the total:

• Feeds per custodian. Some vendors include a set number of accounts or feeds, then charge for more. Ask what the fourth bank costs, and the fifth.
• Implementation. A one-time fee for the setup and historical load, where the vendor publishes one. Ask whether it covers the history of private assets, which no bank sends.
• Reconciliation hours. The platform does not reconcile itself. Count the hours someone spends each month on breaks, missing statements and manual valuations, and price them. It is the one line no vendor quotes.

When a spreadsheet is still enough

Software does not fix missing data. If the family does not yet have a complete inventory of accounts and entities, a platform will produce a faster, better-looking version of an incomplete total.

The tests for when a spreadsheet stops working are set out in consolidated reporting across multiple banks: manual re-keying, audit trail, performance, look-through, key-person risk and the length of month-end. The selection angle adds one thing. If the family passes those tests every month, has no need for look-through into funds or proper time-weighted performance, and has a named person who closes the month, the cheapest serious option is a disciplined spreadsheet plus that monthly owner. Buy software when the tests start failing, and bring the failures to the vendor as your requirements.

For what that tipping point looks like in practice, see wealth spread across multiple banks: a founder with four banks and several entities, and no single view.

Who maintains the data after go-live

Most selections spend months on features and an afternoon on this question. It decides whether the platform still works in month thirteen. There are four answers, and each has a typical way of failing.

• The family. A family member or assistant checks breaks and chases statements. They see everything, which is the advantage. The failure is time: the task drifts once the person has other work, and the platform quietly goes stale.
• The vendor’s data team. Some vendors staff onboarding heavily. Altoo states that “dedicated project managers and connectivity specialists support the onboarding of your data”; Aleta states “a dedicated data engineering team to clean, reconcile, and import your history for you during onboarding”. Both statements describe onboarding. Ask, in writing, what the vendor’s team does every month after it, and what it costs.
• The accountant. Accountants close each entity’s books, usually once a year, at accounting values. They can run monthly reconciliation if the scope and fee are agreed, but it is not their default service.
• An outsourced back office. A third party reconciles monthly, chases missing statements and enters private-asset valuations, under a written calendar. The failure here is unclear ownership: the back office reconciles what it receives, and nobody is told what it never received.

Whichever answer the family chooses, it should be named before signature, with a monthly calendar and one person who signs the total. That is the work we design under family office administration: who does what each month, across the banks, the platform and the advisors, without PWA selling the platform or taking a fee from the vendor.

Before you sign a three-year licence, a written second opinion tests the shortlist against your own banks, entities and data.

Questions we hear

How much does family office software cost?

Published prices, as vendors stated them on 6 October 2026: Kubera $250 or $2,500 a year; Asora from €800 a month; Aleta from about $1,000 a month. Masttro, Altoo, Addepar, Landytech and QPLIX publish no price. Add per-custodian feeds, implementation and the hours spent reconciling, and ask for one annual total in euros.

Is Altoo or Masttro better for a family?

Neither, in general. Both state Swiss hosting. Altoo says it bases fees on the number of banking relationships, not net worth; Masttro states an annual subscription that is not AUM-based, priced on request. The better one is the one that receives your custodians by direct feed, models your entities and quotes a written annual total in euros.

Do I need software before a family office?

Usually not first. A reliable consolidated view comes from the inventory of accounts and entities and from each bank’s statements; software automates that work, it does not replace it. A family with a few banks can start with a disciplined spreadsheet and a monthly owner, and buy a platform when the spreadsheet tests start failing every month.

Can family office software connect to Portuguese, Spanish or Swiss private banks?

Only the vendor can say, bank by bank, and a feed count will not tell you. Send your list of custodians and account types and ask, in writing, whether each bank arrives by direct feed, by file or PDF processing, through an aggregator, or by manual entry. Ask whether each feed is live today for another client.

Where is my data stored, and is that GDPR-compliant?

It depends on the vendor. Masttro and Altoo state Swiss hosting; Kubera states the US East region; Aleta offers EU, US or Asia-Pacific residency. Switzerland has an EU adequacy decision; a transfer to a US host relies on the recipient’s Data Privacy Framework certification or on Standard Contractual Clauses. Ask for the region, the transfer basis and the sub-processor list.

Sources

All pages opened and checked on 6 October 2026. Vendor pages are quoted as the vendor states them; nothing here is a third-party estimate.

Vendors

• Addepar, “Family Office Software”, undated. Supports: “hundreds of global custodians, banks and administrators”, SOC 2 Type II, target clients, “timelines vary”, no price. addepar.com
• Addepar, “Private Banking Software”, undated. Supports: “secure AWS-hosted environments”. addepar.com
• Addepar, “Privacy Policy”, last updated 17 February 2026. Supports: transfers to countries “such as the United States”, Data Privacy Framework participation, Standard Contractual Clauses as a safeguard. addepar.com
• Addepar, “Data Privacy Framework Privacy Policy”, last updated 8 April 2025. Supports: Addepar, Inc. participates in the EU-U.S. DPF, its UK Extension and the Swiss-U.S. DPF. addepar.com
• Addepar, “Connect with us”, undated. Supports: office list (New York first; London, Geneva among ten). addepar.com
• Aleta, home page, undated. Supports: pricing “not based on assets under management”, SOC 2 Type II, “+100 bank integrations”, offices New York (HQ), Bangkok, Aarhus, target clients. aleta.io
• Aleta, “Family Office Software Security”, undated. Supports: Microsoft Azure, EU, US and Asia-Pacific data residency. aleta.io
• Aleta, “Masttro vs. Aleta”, updated 25 June 2026. Supports: “starting at $1,000/mo”, “4–8 weeks”. aleta.io
• Aleta, “Asora vs Aleta”, 13 January 2026. Supports: ”~$1,000 / month”, dedicated data engineering team at onboarding, “guarantees connectivity”. aleta.io
• Altoo, “Security”, undated. Supports: “private cloud hosted exclusively in Switzerland”; no certification named. altoo.io
• Altoo, “Data”, undated. Supports: ”> 500 custodian bank data connections and access to > 3,000 non-custody banks”; project managers and connectivity specialists at onboarding. altoo.io
• Altoo, “The Digital Family Office With Altoo”, 27 July 2023. Supports: fees based on number of banking relationships, clients from CHF 20M to over CHF 1bn, Baar address, target clients. altoo.io
• Asora, “Pricing”, undated. Supports: nine brackets from $30M, tiered by net worth, $50–100M example ($15,600 a year, $3,900 implementation), 20 accounts included, $3,600 per extra pack of 20, private cloud +$4,000 a year, “200+ custodians”, connection guarantee, ISO 27001. asora.com
• Asora, “AI info”, updated 26 August 2026. Supports: “from €800, $900, or £700 per month”, “live within four weeks”, Asora Technologies Limited, Dublin, no hosting region stated. asora.com
• Kubera, home page and “Kubera Black”, undated. Supports: Essentials $250 a year, Black $2,500 a year, “for complex multi-entity wealth”, “thousands of banks and brokerages worldwide”. kubera.com · kubera.com
• Kubera Help Center, “Kubera Essentials vs Black”, updated 5 October 2026. Supports: Essentials “$250/year”, Black “$2500/year”. help.kubera.com
• Kubera, “Security”, undated. Supports: AWS, SOC 2 Type II for Kubera for Business, named aggregators. kubera.com
• Kubera, “Legal”, undated. Supports: “All data is stored on AWS facilities in North Virginia, US (US East Region)”; 2021 Standard Contractual Clauses in processor agreements. kubera.com
• Kubera, “About us”, undated. Supports: Kubera Apps, Inc., San Francisco; “a balance sheet for people who manage their own wealth”. kubera.com
• Landytech, “For family offices”, undated. Supports: “500+ custodian feeds globally”, “10,000+ connections through open banking”, “within around three months”, offices, target clients. landytech.com
• Landytech, “Security”, undated. Supports: Microsoft Azure, ISO 27001, annual SOC 2 audit; no region stated. landytech.com
• Landytech, “Best Family Office Software in 2026 Guide”, 2026. Supports: pricing depends on “feeds, legal entities, portfolios, assets and users”. landytech.com
• Masttro, “AI info page”, information stated as current on 1 May 2026. Supports: “Annual subscription — not AUM-based”, custom pricing, Swiss-hosted, “700+ direct custodian connections”, offices, target clients. masttro.com
• Masttro, “Data security”, undated. Supports: private Azure instance hosted in Switzerland, Tier 4 data centre, ISO/IEC 27001:2022. masttro.com
• PandaConnect, “Family Offices” (PT page), undated. Supports: “over 60 banks and custodians”, Søborg address, target clients; no price, no hosting stated. pandaconnect.com
• QPLIX, “Family Offices”, undated. Supports: “private, certified servers”, “>100 interfaces, to banks, accounting software and more”, five-step onboarding; no price. qplix.com
• QPLIX, “About us”, undated. Supports: Munich headquarters, Frankfurt and Zurich offices. qplix.com

Law and regulators

• European Union, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Articles 28(2), 44, 45 and 46. eur-lex.europa.eu
• European Commission, “Adequacy decisions”, undated. Supports: “without any further safeguard being necessary”; Switzerland, the United Kingdom and US organisations in the Data Privacy Framework listed; the United Arab Emirates not listed. commission.europa.eu
• European Commission, “EU-US data transfers”, undated. Supports: adequacy decision adopted 10 July 2023; data flows to US companies participating in the Framework. commission.europa.eu
• Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1795 of 10 July 2023 (EU-US Data Privacy Framework). eur-lex.europa.eu
• Commission Decision 2000/518/EC of 26 July 2000 (Switzerland). eur-lex.europa.eu
• Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 of 4 June 2021 (Standard Contractual Clauses). eur-lex.europa.eu
• Court of Justice, Case C-703/25 P, Latombe v Commission, appeal brought on 31 October 2025 against the General Court judgment of 3 September 2025 in T-553/23. eur-lex.europa.eu

---

Pedro Souto is the founder of PWA — Private Wealth Advisory. He works with UHNW founders, families, and single-family offices to build an independent operating layer around complex wealth — combining markets, analytics, technology, and governance to turn fragmented advice into one coherent picture, and to make someone, finally, responsible for the whole of it.