Vendor Landscape & Architecture-Driven Shortlisting

Most FP&A/EPM shortlists fail before they start.

Not because teams pick the wrong tool. But because teams pick from the wrong category of tools.

This is the most misunderstood truth in the market:

Most FP&A/EPM vendors are not competitors. They solve fundamentally different classes of problems. Comparing them side-by-side is a structural mistake.

The purpose of Phase 3 is to identify:

• The correct architecture family for your business
• The vendors inside that family that match your bottleneck, complexity, data realities, and growth trajectory
• A cold-eyed, unbiased shortlist based on how systems behave, not how vendors market themselves

We don't build shortlists from vendor reputations. We build them from architecture physics, bottleneck alignment, and organizational fit.

The Four Architecture Families of FP&A/EPM

The FP&A/EPM market has blurred labels ("planning tools," "platforms," "unified FP&A"), but the underlying architectures are clear and predictable.

Every platform falls into one of these four families — and only competes within its family.

⭐ Family 1 — Enterprise Unified Platforms

The most complete, structurally integrated systems.

Examples:

OneStream, CCH Tagetik, Oracle EPM Cloud

Defining characteristics:

• Native consolidation engine
• Unified actuals + planning model
• Deep financial intelligence
• Strong governance and workflow
• Built for multi-entity complexity
• Designed for large dimensionality and multi-currency
• Enterprise-grade data, security, auditability

When this family is appropriate:

• You have a consolidation bottleneck
• You operate globally or multi-entity
• Close and plan must live in one model
• You require strict governance
• You need IC elimination, FX, ownership logic
• Your primary risk is data consistency, auditability, or scale

These are not "planning tools." They are financial systems of record for enterprise performance.

⭐ Family 2 — High-Performance Modeling Platforms

Modern in-memory engines built for speed, dimensionality, and scenario planning.

Examples:

Pigment, Anaplan, Vareto, Abacum, Mosaic (partial)

Defining characteristics:

• In-memory calculation engine
• Multi-scenario branching
• Driver-based modeling
• Flexible dimensionality
• Rapid recalculation
• Strong dashboards and collaboration

When this family is appropriate:

• You have a modeling bottleneck
• You need fast what-ifs and scenario testing
• Your business is dynamic (SaaS, tech, growth companies)
• You need operational planning across teams
• You need a modern UI with flexible modeling

These platforms shine when your primary goal is speed + flexibility.

⭐ Family 3 — Mid-Market Planning Platforms

Governed planning with structured workflow and predictable administration.

Examples:

Planful, Workday Adaptive, Vena, Prophix

Defining characteristics:

• Balanced modeling + governance
• Templates and workflows
• Decentralized user support
• Solid reporting
• Designed for finance teams without technical modeling depth

When this family fits:

• You have a workflow bottleneck
• You need structure more than deep modeling
• Your FP&A team is mid-sized and non-technical
• You prioritize adoption, usability, and governance
• Your forecasting is periodic and structured

These tools strike the balance between sophistication and maintainability.

⭐ Family 4 — Lightweight FP&A Tools

Spreadsheet-adjacent, fast to deploy, built for simplicity.

Examples:

Cube, Jirav, LiveFlow, Firmbase, Farseer, Causal, Helu

Defining characteristics:

• Very fast to implement
• Easy for small finance teams
• Great for early-stage companies
• Excel-first or Excel-adjacent
• Simple modeling and dashboards

When this family fits:

• You're a small or early-stage organization
• You don't need complex dimensionality
• You need reporting + forecasting quickly
• You're not ready for platform-level governance

These tools are perfect until your complexity exceeds their architecture.

A Four-Stage Elimination Algorithm That Protects the Evaluation From Bias

The typical software selection process is bottom-up: "We looked at 12 tools → narrowed to 6 → shortlisted 3."

That's the wrong direction.

CFO Shortlist's approach is top-down, architecture-first.

We don't pick vendors. We eliminate families until the system physics reveal the correct shortlist.

⭐ Stage 1 — Eliminate Entire Architecture Families

Based on your bottleneck class (Phase 1) and success metrics (Phase 0).

Your bottleneck determines which families are even candidates.

This removes 50–70% of the market instantly.

No demos. No noise. No wasted meetings. Just structural elimination.

⭐ Stage 2 — Eliminate Misfit Vendors Within the Architecture Family

Now that you've selected the right family, you filter out vendors that fail your:

• Modeling depth
• Integration needs
• Dimensionality requirements
• Industry-specific logic
• Currency/FX needs
• Data volumes
• User counts
• Scenario complexity
• Auditability expectations

This is where you prevent "false positives" from influencing the process.

⭐ Stage 3 — Score Vendors Against Your Bottleneck Class

This is where most teams get misled by demos. We return to the physics:

This step typically reduces the family from 4–6 players → 2–3 finalists.

⭐ Stage 4 — Apply the Future-Proofing Filter

Where most shortlists fail — and where CFO Shortlist excels.

The final filter is not functionality. It is how the system behaves under future stress:

• Entity growth
• M&A activity
• Multi-currency expansion
• Increased planning granularity
• Additional scenarios
• More end-users
• Higher data volumes
• More complex operational models
• Industry transitions (e.g., SaaS → consumption)

This predicts long-term success or failure in ways demos cannot.

If a tool cannot handle your future, it doesn't matter if it handles your present.

This eliminates any vendor that would become a scalability or architecture liability.

Your final shortlist becomes 2–3 vendors, each capable of supporting your business architecture, your bottleneck resolution, and your long-term roadmap.

A Clean, Modern View of Where Each Vendor Truly Sits in the Architecture Grid

You will present vendors not as "leaders vs challengers," but by their native architectural orientation.

This creates clarity faster than any quadrant.

Enterprise Unified Platforms

• OneStream
• CCH Tagetik
• Oracle EPM Cloud

High-Performance Modeling Platforms

• Pigment
• Anaplan
• Vareto
• Abacum
• Mosaic

Mid-Market Planning Platforms

• Planful
• Workday Adaptive Planning
• Vena
• Prophix

Lightweight FP&A Tools

• Cube
• Jirav
• LiveFlow
• Firmbase
• Causal
• Farseer
• Helu
• Acterys

A clean, architecture-driven view like this becomes the backbone of the entire evaluation.

Every vendor is scored across four dimensions:

Dimension 1 — Architecture Alignment

Does the vendor's core architecture match your complexity, growth plan, data reality, and bottleneck class?

Dimension 2 — Operating Model Fit

Can your team realistically administer it? Does the governance model match your culture?

Dimension 3 — Time-to-Value vs Time-to-Capability

Does the tool deliver quick wins without compromising long-term scalability?

Dimension 4 — Strategic Durability

Will the tool remain the right choice 2–5 years from now as:

• Granularity increases
• Entities grow
• Data volumes expand
• Forecasting becomes continuous
• New business models appear

This is where CFO Shortlist's evaluation becomes meaningfully different from legacy analysts.

Your final shortlist package includes:

• Architecture Family Recommendation — Backed by bottleneck resolution logic.
• Vendor Elimination Matrix — Showing exactly why every vendor was cut.
• Final 2–3 Vendor Shortlist — Each with rationale, risks, and architectural alignment.
• Scenario-Based Demo Scripts (Phase 4) — Reinforcing the requirements and bottleneck alignment.
• TCO / ROI Considerations (Phase 7) — Built into the evaluation from the start.

This structure is what gives CFOs confidence and eliminates internal debate.

The CFO Shortlist method doesn't compare vendors. It compares:

• Architectures
• System behaviors
• Scalability under stress
• Your bottleneck to their engine
• Your future state to their roadmap

This is how modern finance organizations evaluate technology.

This is how you avoid choosing the wrong platform.

This is how you select software that lasts.

Need Help Building Your Vendor Shortlist?

CFO Shortlist provides architecture-driven vendor shortlisting services. We help finance teams eliminate 50-70% of vendors before demos using system physics, bottleneck alignment, and future-proofing filters.