What Wealthtech Actually Solves for Wealthy Families
A family may hold marketable securities at three private banks, private equity interests through several funds, property in different countries and shares in an operating company, while trusts or holding companies determine who ultimately owns what. Every bank and manager can produce an accurate report, although none necessarily knows the family’s full financial position.
Family offices have traditionally filled that gap themselves, often by downloading statements, reconciling holdings and updating internal spreadsheets before an investment committee or family meeting. The workload grows with every additional custodian, entity and private investment, particularly because information arrives in different formats and on different reporting schedules.
Wealthtech platforms have moved into this part of the process. Their usefulness depends less on producing another polished portfolio view than on collecting information that was previously scattered across banks, managers and legal structures, then keeping it organised well enough for advisers to work with it. The companies competing for this work do not all solve the problem in the same way. Landytech comes at it primarily through investment data and reporting; Masttro grew out of the requirements of a family office and puts unusual emphasis on private assets and ownership structures; Addepar has built a much larger data and investment-management platform for family offices, advisers and financial institutions. Their differences help explain how broad the wealthtech category has become.
One bank can only report what it holds
Private banks naturally report from their own books. If a client holds CHF 20 million with one bank and CHF 60 million elsewhere, the first institution can analyse its CHF 20 million exceptionally well without knowing whether its recommendations duplicate positions held in the other portfolios.
The limitation becomes more obvious with larger fortunes. Several managers may independently own Nvidia, Microsoft or Nestlé. Each mandate can remain within its concentration limits while the family’s combined exposure becomes much larger. Currency exposure behaves similarly: a Swiss-franc portfolio may look balanced on its own, although investments held elsewhere may leave the family heavily exposed to the US dollar.
Liquidity is harder again when private investments enter the calculation. Cash sitting at a bank provides only part of the picture if the family has substantial undrawn commitments to private equity funds over the next several years. A family office can calculate all of this manually, and many still do, although the work has to be repeated as valuations, transactions and commitments change.
Instead of preserving the classifications used by each bank, a wealth platform can map holdings into a common structure. Advisers can then examine an asset class, currency, security or manager across several custodians at once, with reporting organised around the owner rather than the institution holding each individual asset.
Better reporting starts well before the report
The dashboard receives much of the attention because it is the part clients see. Much of the harder work happens underneath it.
Bank data has to arrive reliably. Securities need consistent identifiers and classifications. Transactions from different custodians have to be interpreted correctly, while private investments must be linked to the appropriate family member, company or trust. If two banks describe the same security differently, the system needs to recognise that they are the same holding before anyone calculates the family’s exposure to it.
This underlying work provides a useful way to distinguish wealthtech providers. A platform built principally around investment operations will devote considerable attention to feeds, reconciliation, performance calculations and reporting. One developed specifically for families may spend more of its design effort on beneficial ownership, trusts, private companies and the people who need different views of the same fortune. A platform serving large advisory firms and financial institutions has another requirement again: it must process enormous quantities of data consistently while connecting with the other systems used across the organisation.
Landytech, Masttro and Addepar sit at different points along that spectrum rather than functioning as three interchangeable examples.
Landytech: a British platform built around investment data
Landytech is a British wealthtech company headquartered in London, with additional offices in Paris and Pune. Landytech Limited is registered in England and Wales, and the business began trading in 2019. Its founder came from institutional asset management, which is still visible in the way the company describes and develops Sesame, its investment-management platform.
Sesame is particularly relevant to family offices and wealth managers whose main problem is assembling investment information from numerous custodians and turning it into usable portfolio reporting. Landytech combines data aggregation with analytics, risk analysis, reporting and support for alternative assets; more recently, it has added document processing through Sesame Doc AI. The emphasis is consequently closer to an investment-management command centre than to a digital vault designed primarily for the wealth owner.
For an office that still spends several days assembling monthly or quarterly investment reports, removing repeated data collection and reconciliation can have an immediate effect on workload. Landytech has published client cases in which reporting preparation fell substantially after firms automated more of the process. One London multi-family office, for example, had previously updated transactions and valuations manually across hundreds of accounts before moving to automated daily feeds through Sesame.
That makes Landytech a useful example of one branch of wealthtech: software designed to improve the machinery behind professional investment reporting. A family office whose principal headache is ten custodian feeds and laborious quarterly reports may therefore evaluate it for rather different reasons from a family trying to map several generations of trusts, companies and private assets.
Private investments are where spreadsheets start to struggle
Public securities lend themselves relatively well to automated reporting because a custodian already records the security, transaction, price and quantity in structured data. Private investments arrive differently.
A private equity manager may send a capital-call notice as a PDF, followed months later by a distribution notice and a quarterly report containing an updated valuation. A direct company holding may receive a valuation only once or twice a year. Property can involve separate debt, rental income and ownership entities, none of which necessarily appears in the family’s banking data.
As families allocate more capital outside public markets, wealth platforms have had to deal with this less orderly information as well. Some now extract figures from investment documents, record commitments and distributions and incorporate those positions into the family’s wider portfolio.
Automation cannot make an old valuation current. If a private company was last valued six months ago, software should not give the number the appearance of today’s market price simply because it sits beside securities that update every day. A useful reporting system preserves those differences and gives advisers enough information to judge them.
Masttro: family-office software that started inside a family office
Masttro’s origin explains why its proposition looks different. The company says Javier Gutierrez and Domingo Viesca created the system in 2010 while working within a multigenerational family office because they could not obtain a satisfactory view of its accounts, private assets and ownership structures. What began as internal family-office technology later became a commercial platform. Today Masttro has its headquarters in New York, with offices in Zurich and Monterrey, while its private-cloud infrastructure is based in Switzerland. It is therefore better described as an international company with a substantial Swiss presence than as a Swiss wealthtech company.
That family-office origin remains Masttro’s clearest differentiator. Its platform covers bank and brokerage accounts, but it was also designed to accommodate private equity, real estate, operating companies, funds, trusts and other entities. Masttro says it currently provides more than 700 direct custodian feeds and serves more than 400 clients globally.
Its Global Wealth Map goes further than conventional portfolio aggregation by showing the relationships among entities, trusts, foundations, beneficial owners and the assets underneath them. For a family whose fortune includes an operating company owned through several holding entities, a property portfolio held through separate vehicles and trusts established for different generations, that ownership view can answer questions that securities reporting never will.
A property held by a company that belongs to a trust provides a simple example. Its investment value is only part of what the family office needs to know; staff may also have to see which company owns the property, how that entity is financed and who benefits from the trust. Similar questions recur with family companies, investment vehicles and structures established across several jurisdictions.
Masttro has also built alternative-investment processing into the platform rather than treating private holdings as manually entered additions to a liquid portfolio. The company says documents, valuations and capital calls can be ingested and reconciled within the system. Its pricing is fixed rather than based on assets under management, another distinction that can become relevant for very large family offices.
The proposition is therefore less about producing a better bank-style portfolio report and more about maintaining an operating picture of a family’s total wealth.
Addepar: Silicon Valley technology taken to institutional scale
Addepar represents a third route into the market. Joe Lonsdale and Jason Mirra founded the American company in Silicon Valley in November 2009, shortly after the global financial crisis had exposed how difficult it was for large asset owners to determine their exposures across fragmented portfolios. Addepar started with the data problem and subsequently expanded into a much broader technology platform for family offices, RIAs, banks and investment organisations.
Scale now separates Addepar from many specialist family-office platforms. The company says its technology supports more than USD 9 trillion in assets for more than 1,500 clients in over 60 countries. Rather than concentrating primarily on the needs of an individual family, Addepar provides a common data architecture that professional investment organisations can use across large numbers of portfolios, entities and clients.
Portfolio aggregation and reporting remain central to the product, although Addepar has expanded into analytics, alternatives, workflows, APIs and AI. Its open architecture also allows firms to connect Addepar data with other software and services, which matters more to a private bank or large multi-family office running several specialist systems than it does to an individual wealth owner looking mainly for a consolidated dashboard.
This institutional scale also explains why Addepar belongs in the comparison. Landytech shows how wealthtech can improve the investment-reporting operation; Masttro shows what happens when a system begins with the family’s entire ownership structure; Addepar demonstrates how the same underlying need for consolidated data can become infrastructure for a much larger wealth-management organisation.
Geneva gives Addepar a direct Swiss presence
Addepar added Switzerland to its physical network when it opened its Geneva office in 2025. Its current Swiss address is Rue de la Corraterie 5, and the company described the opening as part of its international expansion.
Geneva is a natural location for a company selling technology to organisations managing international private wealth. Swiss private banking has a particularly large cross-border client base, and many of those families maintain additional relationships with banks, asset managers and private-market managers elsewhere.
A Geneva family office might therefore oversee Swiss custody accounts alongside US private equity funds, European property companies and holding structures established in several jurisdictions. Technology developed solely for a single investment account offers limited help when advisers have to understand the combined position.
Addepar’s arrival is also interesting for another reason. The company developed in the American RIA and institutional investment market, where technology platforms have long played a substantial role in adviser operations. Establishing a team in Geneva brings that model directly into a market still strongly associated with relationship-led private banking and bespoke service. The two approaches need not conflict: an adviser can remain highly personal while using considerably better technology behind the conversation.
Switzerland has plenty of fragmented wealth to manage
Swiss banks held CHF 9.284 trillion in assets at the end of 2024, with CHF 4.225 trillion belonging to clients domiciled outside the country. Switzerland also retained its position as the world’s largest centre for cross-border private wealth management.
Cross-border clients often bring additional reporting work with them. Their assets may sit in several jurisdictions, currencies and ownership structures, while their advisers can include Swiss private bankers, external asset managers, lawyers, trustees and tax specialists who each work with different parts of the family’s affairs.
The traditional Swiss private-banking model has handled much of that fragmentation through experienced relationship managers. Better technology gives those advisers a broader set of information to work from. A banker who knows only the assets booked with his institution cannot confidently assess the family’s overall liquidity or concentration risk; if the client or family office can supply a consolidated picture, recommendations can take account of assets held elsewhere rather than assuming that one banking relationship represents the portfolio as a whole.
The Swiss market also has a genuinely domestic example in Altoo. Based in Zug, Altoo has developed a Swiss-hosted wealth platform aimed primarily at wealthy individuals and family offices, aggregating information from different sources and providing portfolio analysis and reporting.
For clients concerned about financial confidentiality, the location and treatment of their data can carry almost as much weight as the analytics themselves.
Putting everything in one system introduces another risk
A complete overview is convenient precisely because highly sensitive information sits together, which means families also need to examine how the provider protects it.
A wealth platform may contain account balances, investment positions, company ownership, property values and information about trusts and beneficiaries. Family-office staff, principals, accountants and outside advisers rarely need identical access.
The practical questions are straightforward. Who can see each entity? Can an accountant work on one company without seeing the principal’s personal investments? What happens when an employee leaves? Is activity logged? Where is the data hosted, how is it encrypted and how does the provider handle access by its own staff?
Masttro, for example, makes privacy architecture part of its product proposition and says that its own employees cannot access client data. The company also uses Swiss-based infrastructure. For a family assessing the platform, those claims are therefore part of the product comparison rather than secondary technical details.
Families should also understand how easily they can retrieve their information if they later change platforms. A system may become deeply embedded in reporting and administration after several years, which makes export formats and historical-data portability worth discussing before implementation rather than after the relationship ends.
The right platform depends on what currently wastes the family’s time
The differences between Landytech, Masttro and Addepar become more useful once the comparison starts with the family rather than the software.
An investment-led family office struggling with multiple custodians, reconciliation and reporting may naturally look closely at Landytech. A family with substantial private companies, property, trusts and several generations of beneficial owners may find Masttro’s family-office origins and entity mapping more relevant. A large multi-family office, bank or investment adviser managing many client relationships may place greater value on Addepar’s scale, data architecture and ability to integrate with a wider technology stack.
None of those descriptions makes one platform categorically better than another. They solve overlapping problems from different starting points.
A family office therefore learns more by examining its own workflow than by comparing a long table of software functions. Which reports are still assembled manually? Which assets routinely fall outside them? Where do employees spend time checking information that has already been entered somewhere else? Which questions about exposure, liquidity or ownership take hours to answer when the underlying data already exists?
Wealthy families are unlikely to stop using several banks and specialist managers simply because aggregation technology improves. Multiple relationships can provide access to different investment expertise, lending capabilities and markets. The more useful development is that diversification among providers no longer has to produce the same degree of fragmentation in the family’s information. Landytech, Masttro and Addepar approach that problem differently, which is precisely why all three belong in the discussion.
