Seven Landytech Alternatives and the Work Each Could Take On

The useful Landytech alternatives depend on which job a US family office needs to change. For custodial data and family reporting, investigate Addepar, Asora or Masttro. For a specific analytics or ownership-view gap, also test Asset Vantage without assuming its ledger must replace the existing books. If the proposed change includes legal-entity accounting, investigate Archway, Asset Vantage, Eton AtlasFive or FundCount. These seven are conditional starting points. No vendor demo or independent ranking informed the shortlist; the detailed comparison below is alphabetical.

Seven alternatives at a glance

These routes identify candidates to test. No vendor has demonstrated a replacement for this article, and the shortlist assigns no award. “Keep the books” means retain the office's existing formal accounting system unless a separately scoped migration passes its own tests.

0101. What Landytech Covers and What Still Needs Verifying

Landytech describes investment, corporate, accounting and reporting work within Sesame One. Its Sesame One 4.0 launch recap brings those functions into one product story. A buyer should test the current contracted Sesame scope before treating any rival's ledger or entity features as an upgrade.

1Sesame One 4.0 and the Current Record Boundary

Landytech describes custodian feed setup, mapping and monitoring, alongside portfolio analysis and family reporting. Its 4.0 recap also discusses corporate records and a general ledger generated from investment activity. These are useful questions to take into a demo, but a product announcement does not show that a particular US office has every module, field, permission or accounting workflow in production.

Start with your own boundary. Which system holds the original custodian file? Where does a corrected price become the approved investment value? Which system contains the entity books? What generates the version the family receives? Our guide to mapping a family-office software stack explains the broader record-owner question. If these functions are already controlled in your Sesame deployment and connected accounting system, changing the whole stack may add work without solving the exception.

Sesame's documented baseline goes beyond the price-correction path. First identify which of these capabilities your US office actually uses and values; a replacement must solve a named gap without discarding a useful control or analytic view. These candidates are starting points for investigation. No comparative vendor test was performed for this article.

2Sesame Accounting: Availability and the Existing Books

The current Sesame Accounting page prominently says “Coming soon.” It describes journal entries and a general ledger generated from Sesame investment activity, while also saying the output can be exported by CSV to the office's existing accounting system. We therefore cannot assume either that Sesame is merely a reporting layer or that it is already a live replacement for a US family's formal books.

Ask Landytech which Accounting functions are generally available to your US entity structure, which are in your agreement, and which system remains authoritative for the close. Request a demonstration of the exact journal or export, review controls, reversals and downstream report lineage. Until then, account for the existing books in every alternative's operating cost and handoff design.

0202. One Custodian Price Correction, Four Records to Check

Use one fixed case to compare different software architectures. This illustrative buyer test uses hypothetical records, and no vendor has completed it for this article. It isolates a corrected custodian-supplied valuation mark for the same reporting date. Units and cash do not change; there is no new trade.

1The Fixed US$50,000 Valuation Illustration

Use the same invented input card with every vendor. Before scheduling demos, have the buyer prepare and verify the original and corrected files in a custodian or agreed test-import schema. Keep the economic records and source IDs identical across candidates; document any format mapping separately. All times below are US Eastern; both files value the same June 30, 2026 position in one wholly owned family LLC.

The position changes by 10,000 × (US$50 − US$45) = US$50,000. The total moves from US$10.00 million to US$9.95 million because the other net reported assets stay fixed. Units and cash do not move. These invented IDs make the sample reproducible; a later market-price movement would be a different event.

The June 30 family report is still a draft when the correction arrives. The controller has not authorized its first release. The office must establish that CUS-0630-B is the accepted source under its valuation policy, then retain the two file IDs, as-of and receipt times, reviewer decision and calculation. The wholly owned assumption matters: a different family ownership interest would change the family's share.

The legal-entity books are a separate decision. For the main sample, assume the LLC uses fair value for this security and its provisional June 30 books already carry the original US$500,000 mark before the corrected file arrives. The controller therefore expects a reviewed US$50,000 downward adjustment to that carrying value before close. Under a different adopted policy or a different prior book balance, the journal amount could differ or there might be no entry; that is a separate case requiring a documented policy decision and reconciliation. Neither outcome follows from a dashboard screenshot or a vendor's generic “accounting” label.

Illustrative buyer test. No vendor has demonstrated this result for this article. It assumes an adopted fair-value policy, a provisional US$500,000 book carrying value and no trade or cash movement; the downward adjustment is reviewed and booked before the US$9.95 million report is released.

2What Must Change Before a Family Report Is Released

The correction crosses four evidence boundaries. The first three establish what is right; the fourth establishes whether anyone may see it.

Use the correction to reject any proposed route that cannot preserve a controlled source-to-report path. A candidate may still merit investigation for another named gap when the current stack passes this test; prove that gap with the corresponding supplemental demonstration in §04. A visible corrected chart alone does not answer whether the source was approved, the books decision was taken or the family received the right version.

0303. Seven Landytech Alternatives and the Work Each Might Own

The early shortlist identifies the work each candidate might take on. The profiles below explain the vendor evidence behind those routes. Public descriptions do not establish that a US buyer has every module, that a named custodian feed works as required, or that any product passes the shared correction. A related Asset Vantage alternatives comparison explores the ledger-versus-reporting-layer choice from another incumbent starting point.

This map covers two ways to investigate alternatives, not a mandate to leave Sesame. Keep the current stack when it passes the required work; no listed vendor has demonstrated either route for this article.

1Addepar

Addepar's family-office page describes multi-custodial data, illiquid assets, ownership look-through and integration with general ledgers. Investigate it when the family needs a different investment-data and analysis layer while its entity books may remain elsewhere. A customer quotation about fund accounting does not establish that Addepar is your formal entity GL. The decisive ownership question is how its investment values and approval status reach the office's existing books.

2Archway (Formerly SEI Archway)

Archway describes aggregation, accounting and reporting built on one general ledger. SEI's July 2025 announcement says its Family Office Services business became Archway after the acquisition. This is a possible wider record-system replacement if the present pain is the split between investment, entity accounting and reporting. The ownership question is whether the contracted Archway GL would become the LLC's formal book of record and how that migration would be reconciled.

3Asora

Asora describes custodial and alternative-asset aggregation, asset views and customized reporting. Its accounting page specifically describes tranche-level book-cost accounting, gains, fees and withholding tax. That is worth testing if investment data and family reporting are the bottleneck; it does not by itself prove a complete legal-entity general ledger. The differentiating question is whether a revised market mark changes the reported fair value while the security's cost basis remains unchanged.

4Asset Vantage

Asset Vantage's product page describes an integrated general ledger, investment book, reconciliation and multi-entity reporting. It is a candidate when the office wants to investigate moving accounting and investment records together. The US package and entity structure determine whether its GL, investment book and report permissions cover the same LLC close; the public feature list leaves that entitlement open.

5Eton AtlasFive

Eton's AtlasFive page describes an integrated GL, investment book, trust and partnership accounting and reporting. It is worth investigating if the family office's proposed change includes entity accounting and operating workflows. AtlasFive may be proposed with services, so the written scope must name who operates, reviews and signs off each module and source. That assignment determines whether the office is changing software, work ownership or both.

6FundCount

FundCount presents a single general ledger beneath family entities, investments and reports. That makes it a candidate when the office is reconsidering the split between Sesame's investment record and its existing accounting system. The buyer-specific question is whether the scoped ledger can take authority for this LLC's valuation policy and history without leaving a parallel reconciliation in the old accounting system.

7Masttro

Masttro's family-office page describes aggregation, an interactive entity-and-asset map and reporting. It belongs on the shortlist when the family needs a different consolidated record and delivery experience. Masttro's FAQ explicitly says it is not a general ledger and does not replace accounting software. Evaluate its investment-data and reporting work alongside a retained posting GL. The differentiating question is whether report access can remain blocked until that GL's close decision has an identified owner and signoff.

0404. Run the Same Buyer Test Across Different Architectures

Every candidate must account for the same exception and final report. Identify which part is native, integrated, exported or still manual. A ledger-bearing suite may show more steps inside one platform; an investment/reporting layer can still be viable if the books handoff is controlled and evidenced.

1Show Before-and-After Source Records and the Investment Calculation

Give each vendor the buyer-prepared, verified pair of test files from the input card: June 30, TEST-SEC-01, 10,000 units, original USD price 50 and corrected USD price 45 received July 3. Keep the same source IDs and economic values across demos; agree any vendor-specific column mapping in advance. Do not add a new trade. Ask the operator to identify the source IDs, import/replacement time, accepted effective date, old US$500,000 value, new US$450,000 value and why no cash changes. The operator should also show how an exception is assigned and who can override or approve the mark. If the product cannot ingest the sample file, record that as a scoped integration task, not as an unqualified product failure.

2Document the Books Decision and Hold the Earlier Report

Set one accounting policy and opening book balance before the demo. For the main path, the LLC uses fair value and its provisional June 30 books already show this security at US$500,000. The corrected US$450,000 mark therefore calls for a reviewed US$50,000 downward carrying-value adjustment before close. Ask the candidate or its connected accounting system to show the entry, its reviewer and the reconciliation to the family report. If your real office uses another policy or starts from another carrying amount, run a separate case and calculate its own journal or no-entry decision; do not silently switch assumptions between vendors.

The prior US$10.00m report is an unreleased draft. Ask the vendor to show who blocks access, how the US$9.95m version is generated, which as-of and version the intended recipient sees, and who authorizes the first release. If a correction instead arrives after a report has already gone out, that is a different test: identify recipients of the old version, notify or recall it under office policy, approve a new version and keep the version history. Do not call the held-draft case a reissue.

Use Pass, Fail or Unknown for each line, with its retained artifact and an owner. A line passes when its expected observation in the table is demonstrated and its evidence retained, whether the step is native, integrated or manual. Fail means an observed numeric mismatch, missing required control or uncontrolled release for that line. Unknown means the step was not observed or was only promised; a scoped import or mapping task stays Unknown until demonstrated. The overall sample passes only when all four lines pass: source replacement, investment recalculation, reviewed books decision and authorized corrected first release with the old draft blocked. A demo pass does not grant contract scope or cutover approval.

The correction is the common control test. It cannot answer every reason for changing an investment platform. Run only the additional demonstrations tied to the office's approved requirements, using the same holdings, entities and recipient roles for every candidate.

Record a capability as Unknown if the proposed configuration cannot show it. A candidate can pass the common correction and still lose a required analytic, document or family-access workflow that Sesame already provides in the buyer's deployment.

3Separate Demo Evidence, Contract Scope and Parallel-Run Approval

A successful sample is only the first gate. Require written scope for data and records (named custodians, fields, entities, book authority and calculation policy), controls (modules, exception roles, reviewers and report permissions) and delivery (implementation, recurring services and support). A vendor's adjacent module is not included merely because its website describes it. The fund-reporting software comparison develops the distinct reporting outputs and fund-type questions if the family office also acts as a fund GP.

Then run a parallel June 30-style close with your actual source files and accounting policy. The controller should reconcile opening and corrected holdings, the required book entries or no-entry decisions, and the recipient-ready report against the existing process. Approve cutover only after exceptions have owners, prior versions remain retrievable and the written agreement matches what the team observed. A candidate can pass the illustrative demo yet fail commercial scope or migration readiness; keep those decisions separate.

0505. What a US Family Office Must Price Beyond the License

Public list figures can orient a budget, but they do not yield comparable US total costs. The offers differ by currency, asset bracket, entity count, modules and services; the office may also keep Sesame or an existing accounting platform during a transition.

1Public Figures and Their Eligibility Limits

For Addepar, Archway, Eton AtlasFive and Masttro, the primary product pages checked here did not establish a directly comparable public US total. A public price may exist elsewhere. Request written US proposals on the same family profile and leave any unquoted line open.

The Landytech page also lists “full platform access & onboarding” among its included items. Ask what that inclusion covers and how it relates to the separate one-time onboarding charge. Add that unquoted charge before treating £29,000 as a first-year budget.

2Quote the Full Stack and the Migration Work

Give every vendor the same entity count, asset mix, custodians, data-feed cadence, report recipients, accounting policy and desired historical cutover. Ask them to separate subscription, custodial feeds, entity/user charges, implementation, historical data cleanup, interfaces, hosting, support and any managed accounting or administration. State which incumbent licenses and external accounting costs remain during parallel running and after cutover. A lower headline license can still leave the expensive handoff in your team's hands; the written responsibility map matters as much as the fee.

0606. Keep Sesame, Add a Specialist or Replace the Record System

The size of the change should follow the failing job. Keep Sesame when its feeds, analytics and reports meet the office's requirements and the remedy is clearer ownership or a module confirmed available and included in the contract. Add or replace an investment/reporting layer when a specific data, analysis or delivery test fails while the entity books remain reliable. Investigate an accounting-core migration when the legal-entity close or investment-to-books seam fails and the required control cannot be repaired within the current stack. Migrate only after the replacement proves the accounting policy, historical conversion, written scope and parallel close. Price each route with retained licenses, interfaces and transition work included.

1Route the Decision by the Failed Handoff

Use these investigation routes to choose demonstrations. They make no best-for award and do not establish that a named vendor lacks another capability. A buyer can keep Sesame for one function and add a specialist for another when a named team owns the interface and reconciliation.

2The Written Acceptance Gate for the First Close

Before a first live close, require three matching records: the demo's retained exception evidence, the signed product-and-service scope, and a parallel-run result on the office's own data. Name the controller who may accept the book treatment and the person who may release the family report. If a source correction is unresolved, the old draft remains blocked. If a vendor cannot yet show or contract the required part of the path, leave that line Unknown; do not cut over, and keep a controlled fallback while repairing any existing process failure.

Illustrative decision sequence, not a vendor result. The common correction and every applicable named-gap test must pass; an unknown or failed requirement remains a hold until resolved and retested.

The verified two-file pair establishes a common control baseline; the supplemental tests establish whether the proposed change solves the office's actual reason to leave Sesame. Choose the smallest route that passes both sets of required tests and has a justified full-stack cost. Keep the reliable parts of the stack and move only the work whose owner, evidence or output improves.