Choosing a financial planning and analytics (FP&A) platform is a decision that must look beyond software features because it shapes how an organisation plans, forecasts, reports, manages data, collaborates with business teams and adapts models over time.
In this guide, we compare the documented approaches of MODLR, Anaplan, Pigment and Workday Adaptive Planning. We have also considered Microsoft Excel and the evolving planning capabilities available across Power BI and Microsoft Fabric. Instead of ranking the platforms, we decided to outline the key areas that buyers should investigate with reference to their own requirements, product demos and proof-of-concept models.
Executive Summary
MODLR, Anaplan, Pigment and Workday Adaptive Planning all support business planning. Each can help organisations improve their budgeting, forecasting, reporting, scenario analysis and collaboration. However, they differ in architecture, modelling approach, user experience, workflows, administration and wider technology ecosystem.
MODLR provides multidimensional modelling, connected financial and operational planning, Workviews, Cards, Inside-Out Reporting and workflow automation within one environment. Anaplan supports connected planning across finance and operational functions. Pigment combines business modelling with visual analysis, collaboration and scenario planning. Workday Adaptive Planning supports financial, workforce and operational planning and can connect with both Workday and third-party systems.
Excel remains valuable for calculations and ad hoc analysis, even though spreadsheet-led processes can become difficult to manage and govern at scale. Power BI is primarily an analytics and visualisation platform. The wider Microsoft Fabric environment now includes planning and writeback capabilities.
Our comparison found that no platform is universally the fastest, most flexible or least expensive. The right choice depends on each organisation’s planning needs, complexity, data, governance, internal skills and the implementation approach.
What’s in This Guide:
- Executive summary
- Introduction
- Why finance teams move beyond spreadsheet-led planning
- What to compare in FP&A platforms
- How we compared the platforms
- Planning platforms and technology approaches at a glance
- What is MODLR?
- MODLR vs Anaplan
- MODLR vs Pigment
- MODLR vs Workday Adaptive Planning
- MODLR vs IBM Planning Analytics
- MODLR and Microsoft Excel
- MODLR vs Power BI and Microsoft Fabric planning
- Where MODLR may fit
- Which FP&A platform should you choose?
- Frequently asked questions
- Final thoughts
- Want to see MODLR in action?
Introduction
Most organisations begin planning in spreadsheets because Excel is familiar, adaptable and widely available. Some use Google Sheets. However, as an organisation grows, planning often expands across multiple files, entities, contributors and source systems, while reporting requirements become increasingly more complex.
Eventually, coordinating data, assumptions, calculations, approvals, scenarios and reports becomes difficult. This is often when businesses begin looking for an Excel replacement that can address evolving CFO pain points and priorities.
FP&A platforms provide a governed environment for bringing these activities together. A connected planning platform also helps link financial plans with the operational assumptions and activities that influence business performance.
Finding the right platform requires buyers to look beyond feature lists and examine how each option would support their models, data, workflows, users and decision-making processes. For a structured evaluation framework, read our article on How to Choose FP&A Software: A Practical Evaluation Guide for CFOs.
Why finance teams move beyond spreadsheet-led planning
Excel continues to be useful for analysis, calculations, prototypes and one-off models. However, it does not need to disappear when your business adopts an FP&A platform.
The case for change, replacing Excel with FP&A, normally arises when recurring planning processes become difficult to manage across separate workbooks.
These warning signs may signal the need for change:
There are multiple versions of the same model or report.
Manual consolidation takes place across departments, entities or business units.
There is limited visibility over changes to formulas and assumptions.
Repeated copying of data between systems and spreadsheets is a common occurence.
It is difficult to coordinate submissions, approvals and commentary.
Creating alternative scenarios takes a lot of time.
There is heavy reliance on individual spreadsheet owners.
Reports need to be reconciled manually with planning models.
While these issues are not present in every spreadsheet process, their significance depends on on each organisation. Factors including the number of users, complexity of the models, frequency of updates and controls required by a business determine when it is the time for a finance transformation. .
Adopting an FP&A platform is less about eliminating spreadsheet use and more about deciding which recurring, collaborative and controlled processes would benefit from a shared planning environment. Prior to the transition, each organisation must decide which recurring, collaborative and controlled processes would benefit from a shared planning environment.
What to compare in FP&A platforms
Before evaluating vendors, it is necessary to define the business processes and decisions the platform must support. A comparison is most useful when every vendor responds to the same requirements and works with the same representative data and models. This is why it is important to ensure that all vendors are given the same brief.
During the evaluation process, CFOs and FP&A teams should examine:
Modelling structure and calculation requirements
Financial and operational planning use cases
Budget and forecast inputs and output
Scenario creation, comparison and governance
Reporting, dashboards and variance analysis
Data integration and transformation
Workflow, approvals and contributor experience
Permissions, audit trails and change control
Administration and the skills required to maintain the platform
Excel interaction and spreadsheet use
Implementation scope, responsibilities and dependencies
Licensing, implementation and ongoing operating costs
Scalability across users, entities, models and data volumes
Product roadmap and compatibility with the organisation's technology environment
A platform demonstration should use realistic business requirements rather than a generic vendor model. It is best practice to inform each vendor in advance about the processes, models, data and outputs you want to see. A proof of concept can then test the calculations, data flows, reporting outputs, workflows and administration tasks that matter most.
For a structured approach, read How to choose FP&A software: A practical evaluation guide for CFOs. The guide includes practical worksheets for defining requirements, comparing vendors, scoring shortlisted platforms and recording the questions that should be addressed during demonstrations and proof-of-concept exercises. Use the same worksheets for every vendor to make the evaluation more consistent, transparent and easier to defend.
How we compared the platforms
In this comparison, we have used publicly available vendor product pages and documentation available at time of writing, and drawn our knowledge of the MODLR platform.
We have considered the platforms' documented approaches to modelling, planning, reporting, scenarios, integration, workflows, governance, administration and deployment. We have, however, refrained from assigning universal capability scores or comparing confidential pricing.
It is necessary to remember that product capabilities, names, packaging and licensing can change. The effort and cost involved in an implementation will also vary according to scope, data readiness of the organisation, integrations required, complexity of models, internal resources and implementation partners. Buyers should confirm current functionality, commercial terms and implementation requirements directly with each vendor.
Since we at MODLR have a commercial interest in this comparison, we ask readers to conduct their own evaluation and test the platforms they shortlist against equivalent requirements.
The official vendor pages and documentation used for this review are listed under Sources reviewed at the end of the article.
Planning platforms and technology approaches at a glance
The platforms below support business planning, but they differ in their documented focus, product structure and surrounding technology environments. This summary is intended to help buyers identify questions for further investigation rather than to rank the platforms.
Now let us look into the details of how these platforms compare. We will also look at questions software buyers should as vendors during their assessment of best-fit.
What is MODLR?
Since we are comparing all the different platforms with MODLR, let us introduce MODLR first.
MODLR is a connected planning and corporate performance management platform. It brings financial and operational data, multidimensional models, forecasts, workflows and reporting into a single governed environment.
Businesses can use MODLR for budgeting, forecasting, scenario analysis, management reporting and operational planning. Models built on MODLR connect financial outcomes with business drivers including sales volumes, pricing, workforce, capacity, projects and costs.
MODLR also provides the following:
Workviews for planning, data entry and analysis
Cards for dashboards and management reporting
Inside-Out Reporting which builds reports from the same models used for planning
An Excel Add-in for governed access through a familiar interface
A Visual Scripting Engine for data, process and model automation
Whether these capabilities are userful for you depends on the intended use cases, model design, implementation and internal capabilities possessed by your business.
MODLR vs Anaplan
What is Anaplan?
Anaplan is an enterprise planning platform designed to connect financial, strategic and operational plans across functions including finance, sales, supply chain and workforce management. It also provides Anaplan Workflow for coordinating tasks, approvals and planning processes.
Organisations seeking to coordinate planning across multiple functions, business units or geographies may consider Anaplan. It also has an established ecosystem of implementation partners and trained model builders.
How the approaches differ
MODLR and Anaplan both use multidimensional modelling and can connect financial and operational planning. The practical differences for a buyer are likely to emerge in terms of model design, reporting requirements, administration, workflow, integration architecture and the intended operating model.
MODLR combines its models with Workviews, Cards, Inside-Out Reporting and the Visual Scripting Engine. It is designed to allow trained finance and business teams to manage models, reporting and selected automation within the platform.
Anaplan connects plans across enterprise functions and provides platform services for modelling, workflow and data orchestration. The people and skills to operate either platform will depend on the complexity of the implementation and the governance structure oof each organisation.
Questions to ask vendors
When comparing MODLR and Anaplan, ask both vendors to demonstrate:
The same multidimensional planning model
A change to a material calculation or business rule
Scenario creation and comparison
Financial and operational plan integration
Management and board reporting
Data loading, validation and transformation
Workflow and approval management
Security and audit requirements
The administration tasks finance will perform after go-live
A phased expansion from the initial use case
It is not practical to assume either the implementation time or total cost based on platform positioning alone. CFOs and evaluation teams should obtain proposals from both platforms based on the same scope, responsibilities, data sources, user assumptions and support requirements. This makes it easier to compare the two platforms.
For a more detailed evaluation, read our MODLR vs Anaplan comparison.
MODLR vs Pigment
What is Pigment?
Pigment is an integrated business planning platform for modelling, forecasting, scenario analysis, reporting and collaboration. Its data integrations connect the planning environment with enterprise systems and data platforms.
Pigment documents capabilities for unified modelling, connected enterprise data, permissions, audit trails, scenarios and collaboration. It can support finance and operational teams working through shared business plans.
How the approaches differ
MODLR and Pigment both support multidimensional business modelling, scenarios, reporting, collaboration and governance. As such, a useful comparison should examine how each platform represents your organisation's calculations, dimensions, operational drivers, workflows and reporting outputs.
MODLR's approach centres on connected models and Inside-Out Reporting Workviews and Cards draw from the underlying data, calculations and assumptions used in planning. Its Visual Scripting Engine supports configurable data and process automation.
Pigment brings modelling, analysis, scenarios, reports and collaborative interaction together within its platform.
Buyers should examine current features and product packaging of each platform directly because their capabilities continue to evolve.
Questions to ask vendors
Ask MODLR and Pigment to show:
How a complex business rule is built, reviewed and changed
How financial statements connect with operational drivers
How scenarios are created, compared, approved and reported
How dashboards trace back to underlying model data
How contributors submit data and collaborate
How permissions operate across models, reports and workflows
How source data is connected and transformed
What finance can administer without external support
How models and costs change as users and use cases expand
The result should be based on your organisation's own proof of concept rather than general claims about which platform offers greater modelling depth, usability or governance.
MODLR vs Workday Adaptive Planning
What is Workday Adaptive Planning?
Workday Adaptive Planning supports financial, workforce and operational planning, reporting and analytics. Its financial planning capabilities include budgeting, forecasting, scenario modelling and reporting. It can connect with the broader Workday environment as well as third-party ERP, GL, HCM, CRM and other data sources.
Organisations already using Workday and those who are evaluating it as a standalone planning platform alongside other systems may be particularly interested in Workday Adaptive Planning.
How the approaches differ
MODLR and Workday Adaptive Planning both support budgeting, forecasting, reporting and business planning. Therefore, a comparison of the two platforms should focus on how the products handle each organisation's specific models, non-financial drivers, data, reports, workflows and administration requirements.
MODLR provides free-form multidimensional modelling, Inside-Out Reporting, Workviews, Cards and finance-owned automation through its Visual Scripting Engine. It can be used to connect financial forecasts with operational plans and drivers.
Workday Adaptive Planning provides financial, workforce and operational planning capabilities, including scenario modelling, reporting and integration with Workday and other enterprise systems. Do not assess its fit based solely by whether the your organisation already uses Workday.
Questions to ask vendors
Ask both vendors to demonstrate:
The same budgeting and forecasting process
Workforce and operational drivers connected to financial outcomes
A non-standard or organisation-specific model
Scenario creation and financial impact analysis
Management reports and dashboards
Excel-connected processes that the organisation intends to retain
Integration with the organisation's actual source systems
Model, security and workflow administration
The proposed implementation team and division of responsibilities
Three-to-five-year licensing, support and operating assumptions
These tests will provide a stronger basis for comparison than merely describing either platform as more flexible, more traditional or more dependent on spreadsheets.
MODLR vs IBM Planning Analytics
What is IBM Planning Analytics?
IBM Planning Analytics is an enterprise planning and analytics platform built around the TM1 multidimensional database. It supports budgeting, forecasting, scenario analysis, reporting and financial and operational modelling.
The platform is often considered by Organisations with complex models, established TM1 environments or teams that use Planning Analytics for Excel often considere it as an option in FP&A software evaluataions.
How the approaches differ
MODLR and IBM Planning Analytics both support multidimensional modelling and complex financial and operational planning. Buyers should compare how each platform supports model development, reporting, Excel interaction, data integration, workflow, administration and long-term platform management.
MODLR combines multidimensional models with Workviews, Cards, Inside-Out Reporting and the Visual Scripting Engine. IBM Planning Analytics combines the TM1 calculation engine with web-based planning capabilities and Planning Analytics for Excel.
The best fit choice may depend on your organisation’s existing technology environment, model requirements, internal skills and whether you are creating a new planning environment or modernising an established TM1 implementation.
Questions to test
Ask both vendors to demonstrate:
The same multidimensional planning model
The creation and modification of business rules
Financial statements connected with operational drivers
Scenario creation and comparison
Management and board reporting
Excel-based reporting and data entry
Data integration and automation
Workflow, security and auditability
Ongoing model and platform administration
Their approach to migrating existing models and historical data
Organisations that have an established TM1 environment should also assess which existing models, rules, reports and processes should be retained, redesigned or replaced.
MODLR and Microsoft Excel
Excel is not a direct equivalent to a connected planning platform. It is a general-purpose spreadsheet application used for calculations, data analysis, modelling and reporting. Our guide to Excel replacement for FP&A explains when finance teams may need to move recurring planning processes beyond spreadsheets.
For a small or self-contained process, a spreadsheet may be entirely appropriate. The case for a planning platform becomes stronger when the process requires shared assumptions, repeatable data integration, controlled input, workflow, auditability or coordinated reporting across many contributors.
MODLR provides a central environment for planning data, calculations, models, workflows and reporting. Its role-based controls and audit capabilities can support processes that would otherwise be coordinated across separate files.
MODLR enables Excel to remain part of the operating model. The MODLR Excel Add-in allows authorised users to access governed MODLR data through Excel. This enables businesses to retain suitable spreadsheet-based analysis and presentation while managing core planning data and logic in MODLR.
Questions to ask before replacing a spreadsheet process
How many files, users and entities are involved?
How much manual consolidation is required?
How often do data, assumptions and reports change?
Can important formula and input changes be traced?
How long does it take to prepare a new scenario?
Does the process depend on one or two spreadsheet owners?
Which Excel activities remain valuable and should be retained?
The answer may be to replace the whole process, move only its controlled core into a planning platform or follow a phased approach to moving from Excel to MODLR, while retaining Excel as an interface to governed platform data.
MODLR vs Power BI and Microsoft Fabric planning
Power BI is Microsoft's business analytics platform for connecting, analysing, visualising and sharing data. MODLR is a connected planning platform that combines modelling, user input, workflows, forecasts, scenarios and reporting.
That distinction requires some qualification. The wider Microsoft Fabric environment now includes planning and writeback capabilities for budgets, forecasts, adjustments and scenarios. Power BI can also be extended through Microsoft services, third-party visuals and custom-developed solutions. The capabilities, licensing and governance requirements will also depend on the components that you select.
Buyers should, therefore, distinguish among:
Power BI used primarily for analytics and visualisation
Power BI combined with Microsoft Fabric planning capabilities
Power BI extended through third-party or custom-developed components
A dedicated connected planning platform such as MODLR
MODLR may suit organisations that want planning models, calculations, scenarios, workflows, user input and reporting governed within one dedicated platform. A Microsoft-centred architecture may suit organisations that want to assemble planning capabilities within their existing Microsoft data and analytics environment.
The two can also be complementary. For instance, it is possible for an organisation to use MODLR for planning and modelling while they use Power BI for selected analytics and enterprise visualisation requirements.
Questions to ask vendors
Which components are required to deliver the complete planning process?
Where will planning logic and writeback data reside?
How will scenarios, approvals and audit trails be governed?
Who will design and maintain the architecture?
Which capabilities are native, in preview, separately licensed or supplied by partners?
How will operational assumptions connect to financial forecasts?
What is the total cost of the complete solution rather than one component?
Where MODLR may fit
MODLR may be considered by organisations seeking to bring financial and operational planning, multidimensional models, workflows, reporting and automation into one environment.
Its relevant characteristics include:
Multidimensional modelling
MODLR models can structure data across various dimensions including time, entity, department, product, customer, region, channel and scenario. This structure can support dimensional profitability analysis, allowing organisations to examine revenue, costs and margins across combinations such as product, customer, channel and region.
The modelling approach can also support other use cases, including workforce planning by role and location, sales planning by product and market, cost allocation by department and activity, and scenario analysis across different operational and financial assumptions. The structure that is appropriate for your firm depends on the business questions and decisions the model is required to support.
Inside-Out Reporting
MODLR Workviews and Cards use the same underlying models that support planning and analysis. This approach, known as Inside-Out Reporting, keeps reports connected to the data, calculations and assumptions held within those models.
MODLR Workviews and Cards use the underlying models that support planning and analysis. This allows reports to remain connected to the data, calculations and assumptions held in those models.
Driver-based planning and scenarios
With MODLR, financial outcomes can be connected to drivers such as demand, pricing, workforce, costs, capacity and foreign exchange rates. This supports driver-based planning by showing how changes in operational assumptions affect financial results. It is also possible to perform scenario planning and what-if analysis by changing assumptions and examining the cascading effects across connected model outputs.
Finance and business participation
MODLR is designed to support collaborative FP&A by enabling trained finance and business users to contribute to planning and manage models, reports and workflows according to their permissions.
The learning curve varies by role. Occasional contributors who enter assumptions, review results or approve submissions through configured Workviews generally need less training than finance users responsible for building models, calculations and reports. Administrators and model owners require a deeper understanding of dimensions, cubes, business rules, security and workflow design.
The level of independence achieved will therefore depend on each user’s responsibilities, the complexity of the models, the training and documentation provided, and the organisation’s governance model. Buyers should ask for a demonstration of role-based training requirements during the evaluation process.
Connected financial and operational planning
Through integrated financial planning, financial forecasts can be connected with sales, workforce, operations, projects, capacity and capital plans. This provides a foundation for integrated business planning in which teams work from shared assumptions and evaluate how operational decisions affect financial outcomes.
You can validate these MODLR characteristics through a demonstration or proof of concept using your own business requirements.
Which FP&A platform should you choose?
There is no universally correct choice. A platform that suits a multinational enterprise-wide transformation may not be the best fit for a focused finance-led implementation. The reverse may also be true.
Create a shortlist by considering:
The decisions and processes the platform must support
The complexity and dimensionality of the models
The financial and operational plans that must be connected
The data sources and transformations required
The number and type of contributors
The reporting and scenario-analysis requirements
The organisation's preferred balance of finance, IT, partner and vendor responsibility
The implementation scope and readiness of data and process owners
The complete three-to-five-year cost of licensing, implementation, support and administration
Ask every vendor to respond to the same requirements. Use the same sample model and data where practical. Document any assumptions, exclusions and separately licensed components in each proposal.
The final decision should be based on demonstrated fit, current commercial information and your organisation's ability to implement and operate the chosen platform.
Frequently asked questions
What are the main alternatives to MODLR?
Organisations evaluating MODLR may also consider platforms such as Anaplan, Pigment, Workday Adaptive Planning, Planful, Vena and Jedox. The relevant shortlist depends on the required use cases, scale, technology environment, internal capability and budget. Excel and Microsoft-based planning architectures may also be alternatives for some processes.
Is MODLR an alternative to Anaplan?
MODLR and Anaplan can both be considered for multidimensional and connected planning. Buyers should compare them using equivalent models, integrations, workflows, reporting requirements, administration tasks and implementation scopes.
Is MODLR an alternative to Pigment?
Both MODLR and Pigment support business modelling, scenarios, reporting and collaboration. Their suitability should be tested against the organisation's model design, reporting, governance, integration and user-experience requirements.
How does MODLR compare with Workday Adaptive Planning?
Both platforms support budgeting, forecasting, reporting and business planning. MODLR combines multidimensional modelling with Workviews, Cards, Inside-Out Reporting and the Visual Scripting Engine. Workday Adaptive Planning supports financial, workforce and operational planning and integrates with Workday and third-party systems. A proof of concept can show how each supports the organisation's specific requirements.
Is MODLR an Excel replacement?
MODLR can replace Excel as the main environment for suitable recurring, collaborative and governed planning processes. Excel can still be used for appropriate analysis and presentation and can connect with MODLR through the MODLR Excel Add-in.
When should a business move beyond spreadsheet-led planning?
A business may consider an FP&A platform when planning involves extensive manual consolidation, version problems, limited auditability, many contributors, frequent forecasts, growing data volumes or complex reporting. The significance of these factors should be assessed for the organisation's own process.
Can Power BI be used for planning?
Power BI is primarily an analytics and visualisation platform, but planning and writeback capabilities are available within the wider Microsoft Fabric environment and through partner or custom solutions. Buyers should evaluate the complete architecture, licensing, governance and maintenance requirements rather than Power BI in isolation.
How should implementation time be compared?
Ask vendors to estimate the same scope using the same assumptions about data preparation, integrations, models, reports, testing, training and internal resources. Clarify what marks the beginning and end of the implementation period and distinguish technical go-live from time to measurable value.
How should FP&A software cost be compared?
Compare total cost over three to five years. Include subscriptions, user or capacity assumptions, implementation, data integration, migration, training, internal administration, partner support, infrastructure and future expansion. Vendor proposals should be based on equivalent requirements.
Why is finance ownership important?
Finance ownership can allow teams to update assumptions, models, reports and workflows without submitting every change to IT or an external consultant. However, the appropriate operating model depends on the platform, the complexity of the environment, governance requirements and the skills available internally.
What should a proof of concept include?
A proof of concept should use representative data and test a material planning model, business rules, scenarios, integrations, reports, workflow, permissions and administration. It should also identify any product components, partner services or custom development required for the proposed solution.
Final thoughts
Selecting an FP&A platform is not about identifying a universal winner. It is about finding the platform and operating model that best support the organisation's planning processes, decisions, data, users and governance requirements.
MODLR, Anaplan, Pigment and Workday Adaptive Planning each provide substantial planning capabilities. Excel remains useful for appropriate spreadsheet tasks, while Power BI and Microsoft Fabric offer an evolving analytics and planning environment.
The strongest evaluation uses consistent requirements, current vendor information and realistic demonstrations. It tests not only what the software can do, but also how the organisation will implement, govern, maintain and expand it.
Want to see MODLR in action?
If you would like to examine how MODLR could support your planning and reporting requirements, contact the MODLR team.
To experience MODLR in action, request a MODLR demonstration.
You can also:
Follow MODLR on LinkedIn for articles, product developments and FP&A insights.
Subscribe to MODLR on YouTube for demonstrations, tutorials and product updates and learn how specific capabilities work through MODLR’s demonstrations and tutorials.
Explore the latest MODLR articles and insights.
Sign up for a MODLR account to explore the platform directly: Get started with MODLR.
Reviewed: 14 October 2026
Product and trade mark notice
Anaplan is a trade mark of Anaplan, Inc. Pigment is a trade mark of Pigment SAS. Workday and Workday Adaptive Planning are trade marks of Workday, Inc. IBM, IBM Planning Analytics, Cognos and TM1 are trade marks of International Business Machines Corporation. Microsoft, Excel, Power BI and Microsoft Fabric are trade marks of the Microsoft group of companies.
All other product names, company names and trade marks mentioned in this article belong to their respective owners. Their use is for identification and comparison purposes only.
MODLR is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by Anaplan, Pigment, Workday, IBM or Microsoft. References to third-party products are based on publicly available information reviewed on 14 October 2026. Readers should confirm current product capabilities, packaging, licensing and commercial terms directly with the relevant vendor.
