Vena vs Cube: Complete Comparison for Excel-Native FP&A Teams

Choose Vena if your finance team needs structured, governed FP&A planning with dimensional modeling, deep workflow, consolidation capabilities and tight Microsoft ecosystem integration. Vena is the right platform when you're building planning architecture that scales.

Choose Cube if your finance team wants to keep their existing Excel or Google Sheets models, add centralized data and governance quickly and get value fast without a heavy implementation. Cube is the right platform when you need FP&A modernization without changing how you work.

For most mid-market teams with growing complexity and a need for structured planning workflows, Vena is the more scalable long-term platform. For lean teams that need speed, simplicity and spreadsheet preservation above all else, Cube delivers faster time to value with less overhead.

Vena Solutions

Vena is the leading Excel-native FP&A platform, purpose-built for the Microsoft technology ecosystem. Founded in Toronto and backed by Vista Equity Partners, Vena has built a large installed base across the mid-market and lower enterprise, with particular strength in organizations that run on Microsoft 365.

Vena's architecture is built around CubeFLEX, its proprietary OLAP database that sits behind Excel. Finance teams model, plan and report inside Excel - but with Vena's structured database, workflow engine, version control and audit trail underneath. This is Vena's core value proposition: your team keeps Excel, but gains the governance, structure and collaboration that raw spreadsheets can't deliver.

In 2025 and 2026, Vena has accelerated its AI strategy significantly. Vena Copilot - powered by Microsoft Azure OpenAI - now operates across the Vena platform and inside Microsoft Teams. The Planning Agent, launched in late 2025, integrates directly into Excel, letting users perform driver-based planning and predictive forecasting through a conversational interface. Vena also announced the acquisition of Acterys in February 2026, bringing Power BI-native planning and write-back capabilities into the platform and signaling a deeper push into what Vena calls "Orchestrated Planning."

Vena was recognized as a Challenger in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Financial Planning Software.

Great for: Excel-heavy FP&A teams embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem; Organizations that need structured, governed planning with Excel flexibility; Companies scaling from spreadsheets that want minimal change management; Finance teams that value a large partner ecosystem and enterprise-grade governance.

Cube

Cube is a spreadsheet-native FP&A platform founded in 2018 in New York by Christina Ross, a former CFO who built the product to solve the problems she lived through in finance. Backed by Battery Ventures with approximately $65 million in total funding, Cube has grown to roughly 300 customers primarily in the SMB and mid-market segments.

Cube'ss approach is fundamentally different from Vena's. Rather than building structured templates on top of an OLAP cube, Cube positions itself as a data and governance layer that wraps around existing Excel and Google Sheets models. Finance teams keep their spreadsheets as-is while Cube centralizes data from ERPs, CRMs, HRIS and billing systems, adds version control and audit trails, and automates the push/pull between spreadsheets and the central data store.

Cube has invested in AI with its FP&Ai Suite, including conversational AI analysts available in Slack, Microsoft Teams and the Cube workspace. These tools handle variance analysis, forecasting assistance and narrative generation through natural language queries.

Cube is not trying to be an enterprise planning engine. It is trying to become the standard for Excel-native FP&A governance.

Vena - Structured Excel with a dimensional backbone

Vena treats Excel as the modeling and input layer backed by a proper OLAP database. CubeFLEX provides defined dimensions, hierarchies and data cubes. Finance teams work in governed Excel templates that connect to this dimensional model. Inputs flow through structured workflows with approval chains and audit trails.

This is a more prescriptive approach. You gain deep structure, governance and scalability, but your team needs to invest in template design and dimensional configuration during implementation. The payoff is a planning architecture that supports complex, multi-dimensional analysis and cross-functional workflows.

Cube - Excel as the thin client to a data engine

Cube treats Excel as a view layer on top of a centralized cloud data store. Existing Excel models are connected to the platform and Cube handles the data consolidation, governance, versioning and AI behind the scenes. Your spreadsheets remain your spreadsheets - Cube just makes the data underneath them trustworthy.

This is a less prescriptive approach. Cube doesn't require finance teams to rebuild models in a new template structure. It wraps around existing workbooks, automates the data pipeline and adds governance without requiring a structural overhaul. The trade-off is that model quality still depends on how well the underlying Excel was built.

What this means for buyers:

If your FP&A team wants structured, governed planning with defined templates and dimensional models, Vena's architecture is more purpose-built for that. If your team has existing Excel models they don't want to rebuild and wants to add governance, automation and AI on top of what already exists, Cube's approach creates less friction.

Budgeting and Forecasting

Vena has deeper, more structured planning capabilities. Budget approval chains, rolling forecast configurations, driver-based model templates and departmental input forms are mature and well-established. The OLAP backbone enables multi-dimensional analysis across departments, entities, scenarios and time periods.

Cube delivers solid budgeting and forecasting through its centralized data layer. Driver-based modeling happens in native spreadsheet formulas. Automated data refresh, scenario versioning and multi-entity rollups work well. But the planning workflows are lighter - Cube provides the data infrastructure and governance rather than structured planning templates.

Scenario Planning

Vena's scenario modeling operates within its dimensional model. Teams can compare scenarios across structured dimensions with visual toggles and the Planning Agent adds conversational scenario creation in Excel.

Cube supports multi-scenario analysis through faster versioning than raw Excel. Scenarios live in the central data store with shared dimensions across models. The approach is effective but less structured than Vena's dimensional scenario engine.

Workforce Planning

This is a meaningful gap. Vena has mature workforce planning capabilities including headcount planning, compensation modeling, benefits and FTE tracking within structured templates. Cube offers basic headcount planning but it is not deeply built out.

For teams where workforce planning is a core FP&A function, Vena has a clear advantage.

Cross-Functional Planning

Vena is pushing toward broader operational and revenue planning, especially with the Acterys acquisition bringing Power BI-based operational planning into the fold. Cube is primarily finance-focused and is not designed for xP&A across HR, sales and supply chain.

Consolidation

Vena offers multi-entity consolidation with intercompany eliminations within its platform. This is a core capability for organizations with multiple entities.

Cube provides multi-entity rollups but does not offer statutory consolidation with intercompany eliminations. For teams that need true consolidation capabilities, Vena is the better choice.

Vena

Vena's UX is Excel. If your team knows Excel, they know Vena's modeling layer. The web interface for dashboards, workflow management and administration is clean and modern. Business users who aren't Excel-savvy may find the template-based input process less intuitive - it requires comfort with structured spreadsheets.

The Microsoft Teams integration brings Vena's AI capabilities into the collaboration tools finance teams already use, which is a genuine usability advantage for Microsoft-heavy organizations.

Cube

Cube'ss UX is one of its strongest differentiators. The platform works across both Excel and Google Sheets with a bi-directional add-in that feels lightweight and natural. Finance teams describe Cube as "Excel with superpowers" because the existing spreadsheet experience barely changes. The learning curve is minimal.

For organizations where Google Sheets is part of the workflow, Cube has a meaningful advantage. Vena is Microsoft-only.

What this means for buyers: If your team runs on Microsoft and wants a structured Excel experience, Vena's UX is well-matched. If your team values simplicity, uses both Excel and Google Sheets or wants the lowest possible learning curve, Cube is easier to adopt.

Vena

Vena integrates with major mid-market ERPs (NetSuite, Sage Intacct, Dynamics 365, QuickBooks), CRMs (Salesforce, HubSpot) and HRIS systems. CubeFLEX, the OLAP database, acts as the centralized data store. The Acterys acquisition adds Power BI write-back and Microsoft Fabric connectivity.

Vena's integration strategy is Microsoft-ecosystem-first, which is a strength if your data stack runs on Microsoft tools.

Cube

Cube integrates with NetSuite, Sage Intacct, QuickBooks, Xero, Salesforce, HubSpot, BambooHR, Gusto, Rippling, Stripe, Chargebee, Recurly, Maxio and data warehouses (Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift). The integration surface is broad and particularly strong for SaaS billing stacks.

What this means for buyers: Both cover mid-market ERP and CRM basics well. Cube has an edge in SaaS billing integrations (Stripe, Chargebee, Recurly, Maxio). Vena has an edge in Microsoft ecosystem depth. Choose based on your stack.

Vena

Typical go-live: 8-14 weeks. Implementation involves configuring CubeFLEX dimensions, building Excel templates, setting up workflow and approval chains and integrating data sources. Template development is the most time-intensive phase - it requires careful design to balance flexibility with governance.

Vena has a mature partner ecosystem for implementation, which provides options but also means many deployments involve third-party SI costs.

Cube

Typical go-live: 4-6 weeks. Implementation is fast because teams keep their existing models. The process focuses on connecting data sources, mapping the chart of accounts and dimensions, configuring templates and enabling workflows.

Cube is consistently one of the fastest FP&A platforms to implement because there is no model rebuild required.

What this means for buyers: If speed to value is your top priority and you want to preserve existing spreadsheet models, Cube is faster. If you're willing to invest more time upfront to build a structured planning architecture, Vena's implementation delivers a more governed foundation.

Vena

License tier: $$-$$$. Pricing varies by modules (FP&A, Consolidation, Reporting), user types and data volume. Implementation costs depend on partner involvement and template complexity. Ongoing admin requires maintaining Excel templates, which can quietly add cost if models grow complex.

Cube

License tier: $-$$. Pricing is custom but generally falls in the low-to-mid five figures annually for mid-market companies. Implementation costs are lower due to faster deployment. Ongoing admin is lighter because there is less template architecture to maintain.

What this means for buyers: Cube is generally less expensive than Vena on both license and implementation. For lean teams or smaller organizations, this cost difference is significant. For larger organizations where planning complexity justifies the investment, Vena's TCO is reasonable for what it delivers. Consider the total cost including implementation and ongoing admin, not just license fees.

Choose Vena if:

• Your organization runs on Microsoft 365 and you want planning native to that ecosystem
• You need structured, governed FP&A planning with dimensional models and deep workflow
• Workforce planning is a core requirement
• Cross-functional planning across revenue, workforce and operations is important
• You need financial consolidation capabilities
• You have the budget and timeline for a more comprehensive implementation
• You value Gartner recognition and a large partner ecosystem
• Your company has 200+ employees with growing planning complexity

Choose Cube if:

• Your team wants to keep existing Excel or Google Sheets models without rebuilding
• Speed to value is critical and you need to be live in weeks not months
• You have a lean FP&A team of 1-5 people
• Budget is a primary consideration
• You use Google Sheets alongside or instead of Excel
• Your primary needs are data centralization, version control and automated reporting
• You want the simplest possible FP&A modernization path
• Your company has 50-1,000 employees

Vena and Cube both deliver on the Excel-native promise but serve different buyer profiles.

Vena is the better choice when your organization needs a structured planning platform with dimensional depth, governed workflows, consolidation and tight Microsoft integration. It is a more complete FP&A system with a higher ceiling.

Cube is the better choice when your team needs speed, simplicity and spreadsheet preservation above all else. It is the fastest path from Excel chaos to governed FP&A with the lowest barrier to entry.

One important consideration: Cube is a transitional solution for some teams. It excels for 1-3 years but teams with growing complexity sometimes outgrow it and move to more structured platforms. If you anticipate significant growth in planning complexity over the next 2-3 years, factor that into your decision.

Cube supports Google Sheets and Vena doesn't - does that matter?

It matters if your team uses Google Sheets. Cube offers full bi-directional sync with both Excel and Google Sheets. Vena is built around the Microsoft ecosystem and does not offer native Google Sheets support. If your organization uses Google Workspace, Cube is the better fit.

Which platform is better for workforce planning?

Vena. It offers mature headcount planning, compensation modeling, benefits and FTE tracking within structured templates. Cube provides basic headcount planning but it is not a strength. If workforce planning is a core requirement, Vena has a clear advantage.

Will my team outgrow Cube?

Possibly. Cube is excellent for lean teams with straightforward planning needs. But as organizations grow in complexity - more entities, more dimensions, more cross-functional planning, deeper consolidation needs - some teams find they need more structure than Cube provides. If you anticipate significant growth in planning complexity, consider whether Cube will still fit in 2-3 years.

Which platform has better AI?

Vena's AI investment is larger with Copilot operating across the platform and Teams plus the Planning Agent in Excel. Cube'ss FP&Ai Suite is practical and conversational but lighter. Neither platform's AI should be the deciding factor today, but Vena has more breadth.

Which platform implements faster?

Cube. At 4-6 weeks typical go-live versus 8-14 weeks for Vena, Cube is consistently one of the fastest FP&A tools to implement because it preserves existing models rather than requiring template builds.