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

Choose Vena if your finance team wants a mature, structured FP&A planning platform that lives inside the Microsoft ecosystem, with deep Excel modeling, strong workflow governance and an expanding AI copilot that works across Excel and Teams.

Choose Datarails if your finance team wants a broader FinanceOS that unifies FP&A, close, cash and spend control around a centralized data layer, with AI agents that automate reporting and narrative generation and you want to consolidate multiple finance workflows into one platform.

For teams whose primary need is structured FP&A planning with strong Excel modeling, Vena is the more mature and purpose-built platform. For teams that want to consolidate fragmented finance workflows - FP&A, close, cash, reporting - into a single AI-native system, Datarails is the more ambitious and unified play.

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.

Datarails

Datarails is an AI-native, Excel-native finance platform that has evolved from an FP&A tool into a broader FinanceOS covering FP&A, month-end close, cash management, spend control and executive reporting. Founded in 2015 with development in Israel and corporate offices in New York, Datarails raised $70 million in Series C funding in January 2026, bringing total funding to $175 million.

Datarails' core philosophy is that Excel files are not databases. The platform centralizes all financial and operational data in the cloud and turns Excel spreadsheets into governed views on top of that data. The Excel add-in is bi-directional - pulling governed data into Excel ranges and pushing modeled outputs back to the platform - with formula tracking, cell-level lineage and multi-user collaboration built in.

Datarails has leaned heavily into AI as a core differentiator. Genius, its AI engine, powers narrative generation, variance explanations, predictive forecasting and anomaly detection. In January 2026, Datarails launched Strategy, Planning and Reporting AI Finance Agents that generate board-ready PowerPoint, PDF and Excel files from unified data. February 2026 brought Spend Control, a new product with AI-powered contract review and vendor management.

The strategic trajectory is clear: Datarails is building toward a unified finance operating system for the mid-market CFO, with AI at the foundation rather than as an add-on.

Great for: Finance teams that want FP&A, close, cash and reporting in one platform; Organizations with heavy Excel usage that want automation without migration; CFOs looking for AI-native capabilities embedded across finance workflows; Mid-market companies that want to consolidate their finance tech stack.

Vena - Excel as the structured planning layer

Vena treats Excel as the modeling and input interface, backed by a proper OLAP database (CubeFLEX). Finance teams build models, templates and input forms in Excel. Vena provides the dimensional structure, centralized data store, workflow, versioning and audit trail.

This is a structured approach. Vena provides pre-built templates, cascading input forms and governed Excel workbooks that connect to the OLAP cube. The modeling happens in Excel, but it's Excel within a framework. You gain structure and control but trade some of the wild flexibility of ungoverned spreadsheets.

Vena's deep integration with the broader Microsoft ecosystem is a meaningful differentiator. Native Teams integration, Power BI connectivity and the Acterys acquisition signal a platform that wants to be the planning layer inside Microsoft's productivity stack.

Datarails - Excel as the thin client to a data engine

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

This is a less prescriptive approach. Datarails 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, Datarails' approach creates less friction.

Budgeting and Forecasting

Both platforms deliver strong budgeting and forecasting. Vena's approach is more structured - Excel templates connected to an OLAP cube, with defined dimensions, cascading inputs and pre-built planning workflows. Datarails' approach is more flexible - connecting existing Excel models to a centralized data engine and automating the consolidation process.

Vena has deeper FP&A-specific workflow out of the box. Budget approval chains, rolling forecast configurations, driver-based model templates and departmental input forms are mature and well-established. Vena has been a dedicated FP&A platform for longer and it shows in the depth of its planning workflows.

Datarails is strong on budgeting and forecasting, but its planning workflows are lighter. Where Datarails excels is in automating the data preparation and consolidation that feeds planning - pulling from ERPs, CRMs and HRIS systems and eliminating the manual data gathering that dominates most FP&A cycles.

Scenario Planning

Vena's scenario modeling operates within its structured Excel environment. Teams can build and compare scenarios within governed templates, toggle assumptions and run multi-scenario analysis. The Planning Agent adds conversational scenario creation directly inside Excel.

Datarails supports scenario modeling through its centralized data layer, where users can model different assumptions and compare outcomes. AI-generated predictive forecasting and driver inference are embedded. The approach is less structured than Vena's but benefits from Datarails' broader data consolidation - you're running scenarios on top of unified data rather than siloed spreadsheets.

Workforce Planning

Vena has mature workforce planning capabilities. Headcount planning, compensation modeling, benefits and FTE tracking work within Vena's structured template architecture. This is a strength for organizations where workforce planning is a core FP&A function.

Datarails offers headcount planning as part of its FP&A module, but it's not as deeply built out as Vena's. For teams where workforce planning is the primary use case, Vena has an edge.

Cross-Functional Planning

Vena is pushing toward broader operational and revenue planning, particularly with the Acterys acquisition bringing Power BI-based operational planning into the fold. The platform supports revenue, workforce and operational planning workflows.

Datarails is primarily finance-team focused. It unifies finance workflows rather than extending planning across the business. If your need is cross-functional planning with broad business user participation, Vena is better positioned.

Vena

Vena does not offer dedicated cash management or spend control products. Cash forecasting can be modelled within the platform's planning environment, but it requires manual setup.

Datarails

Cash Management is a core Datarails product, connecting directly to company bank data for real-time cash position monitoring, liquidity forecasting and cash flow management.

Spend Control, launched in February 2026, provides centralized contract visibility, AI-powered contract review, duplicate detection and automated renewal workflows.

If managing cash flow and vendor spend are priorities alongside FP&A, Datarails offers these as integrated products rather than requiring separate tools.

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.

Datarails

Datarails' UX also lives in Excel via the add-in, but the platform has invested in its web interface for dashboards, Storyboards (executive reporting) and workflow management. The Storyboard experience - where AI generates narrative commentary alongside visual dashboards - is designed to replace static board decks with live, governed reporting.

Because Datarails wraps around existing Excel models rather than requiring structured templates, the initial onboarding friction is often lower. Teams don't need to rebuild their models in a new format.

For both platforms, the reality is that Excel is Excel. The UX difference comes down to how much structure the platform imposes and how much of the experience extends beyond the spreadsheet.

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.

Datarails

Datarails offers 200+ connectors across ERPs, CRMs, HRIS, billing platforms, banks and data warehouses (Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift). The centralized data store handles schema detection, versioning and historical snapshots. Direct bank connections support the cash management product.

Datarails' integration surface is broader, particularly for non-Microsoft environments and for connecting financial data with operational data from billing, banking and data warehouse sources.

What this means for buyers: If you're a Microsoft shop, Vena's native ecosystem integration is a significant advantage. If you have a diverse tech stack or need connections to banking, billing and warehouse platforms alongside ERP, Datarails' broader connector library is more flexible.

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.

Datarails

Typical go-live: 8-12 weeks. Because Datarails wraps around existing Excel models rather than requiring structured template builds, implementation cycles are shorter. The process focuses on connecting data sources, validating mappings and configuring dashboards and workflows.

Datarails implementations generally involve less rebuilding and can leverage existing Excel models as-is, which reduces both timeline and risk.

What this means for buyers: If speed to value is a priority and you want to preserve existing Excel models without rebuilding, Datarails is typically faster. If you want a more structured implementation that builds proper planning architecture from the ground up, Vena's template-based approach delivers a more governed foundation - but takes longer.

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.

Datarails

License tier: $$-$$$. Pricing scales with entities, users and modules (FP&A, Close, Cash, Spend). Implementation costs are generally lower due to faster deployment. Ongoing admin is lighter because there's less template architecture to maintain.

What this means for buyers: For comparable FP&A scope, TCO is similar. Datarails may edge lower on implementation and admin costs. Vena may edge higher if template complexity grows. Datarails' broader product surface (close, cash, spend) can offset the cost of separate point solutions if you'd otherwise need those capabilities from other vendors.

Choose Vena if:

• Your organization runs on Microsoft 365 and you want a planning platform native to that ecosystem
• You want structured, governed FP&A planning with defined templates and dimensional models
• Your team has strong Excel modellers who want to work within a controlled framework
• Cross-functional planning (revenue, workforce, operational) is a priority
• You value a mature partner ecosystem and proven enterprise-grade governance
• You want AI that integrates into Microsoft Teams and the broader M365 stack
• Gartner recognition and analyst validation matter to your evaluation process

Choose Datarails if:

• You want to unify FP&A, close, cash management and spend control in one platform
• Your team has existing Excel models they don't want to rebuild
• You want AI that generates finance deliverables - board decks, narratives, reports
• Speed to value is critical and you want a shorter implementation
• Cash flow visibility and vendor spend management are priorities alongside planning
• You prefer a broader FinanceOS vision over a pure-play FP&A platform
• You want to consolidate multiple finance point solutions into a single vendor

Vena and Datarails are both excellent Excel-native platforms - but they are solving different problems.

Vena is the strongest choice for mid-market finance teams that want a proven, structured FP&A planning platform inside the Microsoft ecosystem. If planning maturity, governed modeling and cross-functional FP&A are your priorities, Vena has deeper purpose-built capability and a larger installed base.

Datarails is the strongest choice for mid-market finance teams that want a unified finance operating system. If your pain extends beyond FP&A into close, cash, reporting and spend and you want one platform with AI at its core, Datarails' broader ambition and faster deployment offer a compelling path.

Neither platform is wrong. The right choice depends on whether your primary need is better planning or a better finance stack.

Both platforms are "Excel-native" - what's the actual difference?

Vena uses Excel as a structured modeling and input layer backed by a proper OLAP database (CubeFLEX). You build models within Vena's template framework. Datarails wraps around your existing Excel models and centralizes the data behind them. Vena gives you more structure out of the box. Datarails gives you more flexibility to preserve how you already work.

Which platform is better for month-end close?

Datarails has invested more deeply in close management as a dedicated product. Task coordination, reconciliation workflows, reviewer sign-offs and close dashboards are core capabilities. Vena offers consolidation and some close support, but close is not its primary product focus.

Which platform is better for Microsoft-heavy organizations?

Vena. Its native integration with Microsoft 365, Teams, Power BI and now Acterys/Fabric makes it the most ecosystem-aligned option. Datarails works with Excel but is not built around the broader Microsoft productivity stack.

Which platform implements faster?

Datarails typically goes live in 8-12 weeks because it wraps around existing models. Vena typically requires 8-14 weeks because template development and dimensional configuration take longer. Both are fast relative to enterprise EPM tools.

Which platform has better AI?

Both are investing heavily and both use Azure OpenAI. Vena's AI is more workflow-integrated (Copilot in Teams, Planning Agent in Excel). Datarails' AI is more output-generative (Finance Agents creating board decks, narratives, reports). The "better" AI depends on whether you want AI assisting your work or AI creating deliverables.

Can either platform replace a consolidation tool?

Both offer multi-entity consolidation with currency translation and intercompany eliminations. For mid-market consolidation needs, both are capable. Neither is a replacement for enterprise-grade statutory consolidation tools like OneStream or Oracle EPM in complex global environments.