Is Landytech a Reporting Tool or a System of Record?

Read Time16 Mins

What Landytech Delivers and Where It Stops

Landytech is a reporting-first investment management platform built to consolidate investment data across banks, custodians, and institutions. It centralizes portfolio reporting across accounts and assets. It improves visibility. It does not originate accounting entries. It aggregates records created elsewhere.

Wealth owners and financial advisors often encounter it through market coverage and publications such as Family Business Magazine, which emphasizes transparency in reporting. The positioning is clear: reporting layer, not ledger authority.

In family wealth management, visibility and structural control are different responsibilities. Reporting answers what is visible. Accounting determines what is authoritative.

What Landytech Delivers

• Consolidated portfolio reporting across institutions
• Data aggregation from custodians and banks
• Centralized dashboards for wealth managers and internal teams
• Improved access to multi-asset portfolio visibility
• Reporting views across accounts

Where Its Design Stops

• No native accounting ledger
• No structural control over journal entries
• Dependence on external books
• Reconciliation is not eliminated by design

That boundary defines the subsequent evaluation.

The Role Landytech Plays in Family Offices

Single-family offices, multi-family offices, private banks, and trust companies use Landytech to centralize investment reporting across institutions. It simplifies portfolio monitoring when assets are spread across custodians. Wealth managers and dedicated teams gain consolidated access to reporting without replacing existing accounting systems.

In that role, it functions as a management platform for reporting aggregation. It supports decision-making by presenting unified investment data. It does not replace the accounting infrastructure that supports compliance, ownership control, and structural accuracy.

The distinction becomes relevant when complexity increases. Reporting visibility scales easily. Accounting authority does not.

Why This Article Evaluates Architecture, Not Features

Most platform comparisons focus on dashboards and features. That works when portfolios are simple, and the reporting history is short. It becomes less useful once investment data changes, entities shift, or corrections are made.

Many platforms offer portfolio analytics, investment reporting, and risk management tools. On paper, they appear to provide all the tools a family office might need. Architecture determines how those capabilities behave when the underlying data moves.

This article evaluates Landytech based on structural behavior rather than feature breadth. The comparison follows a disciplined chain:

• Architecture defines where accounting authority sits and what the system treats as truth.
• Workflow determines how corrections and ownership changes are processed.
• Team efficiency reflects the extent of coordination required between accounting and advisors.
• Trust and cost emerge from reconciliation efforts and reporting defensibility over time.

Each section traces this progression. The issue is not tool availability. It is whether the structure supports confident, informed investment decisions as complexity increases.

System Architecture: Why Aggregation Creates Dependency

Landytech operates as a data aggregation platform within the broader landscape of digital platforms used by family offices. It synchronizes investment data from external accounting systems, custodians, and banks. It does not originate transactions or maintain the primary books of record.

Asset Vantage operates as an accounting-led system of record. Transactions are posted into a native ledger inside the platform. Reporting derives directly from accounting entries.

The difference is not cosmetic. It defines where authority lives.

When reporting depends on external books:

• Validation must occur before synchronization
  • Corrections originate outside the platform
  • Timing depends on upstream systems
  • Ownership of truth sits elsewhere

When reporting originates from a native ledger:

• Entries post once
  • Reporting recalculates immediately
  • Adjustments propagate structurally
  • Authority remains inside the platform

This is where dependency begins or ends.

Structural Comparison

Dimension	Landytech	Asset Vantage	Team-Level Workflow Impact
Core Model	Data aggregation platform	Accounting-led system of record	Landytech teams reconcile before reporting. Asset Vantage teams analyze from a unified ledger.
Ledger Location	External accounting systems	Native ledger inside the platform	Landytech month-end spans systems. Asset Vantage closes the center within a single ledger cycle.
Reporting Source	Aggregated financial data	Ledger-driven financial data	Landytech reporting depends on synchronization timing. Asset Vantage reporting reflects posted entries immediately.
Ownership Updates	Coordinated across systems	Updated within a unified structure	Landytech ownership changes require cross-team validation. Asset Vantage updates propagate within accounting.
Reconciliation Behavior	Recurring validation workflow	Structurally reduced	Landytech embeds verification in routine workflows. Asset Vantage reduces validation workload structurally.

Impact on Cross-Team Workflow

Architecture determines how teams interact.

In an aggregation model, reporting teams depend on accounting teams before clients or families review performance. If financial advisors request updated views, coordination across systems becomes necessary.

Workflow becomes sequential:

1. External accounting updates
2. Data synchronization
3. Validation checks
4. Reporting release

Each step introduces timing exposure, since reporting depends on data in transit rather than entries posted directly inside the platform.

In an accounting-led system, posting and reporting share the same source. Updates do not wait for synchronization. Advisors, operations, and reporting work from one ledger.

Coordination shifts from validation to analysis.

Impact on Operational Efficiency at Scale

Early-stage portfolios may not expose this difference. At a small scale, synchronization feels manageable.

Scale changes the equation.

As assets grow across managers, accounts multiply, and structures expand:

• Coordination cycles increase
  • Month-end spans systems
  • Correction loops extend
  • Operational oversight intensifies

What began as visibility becomes maintenance.

In a unified ledger model, complexity increases within a single system. Posting logic absorbs scale. Reconciliation does not expand proportionally with assets.

The architectural choice determines whether operational effort compounds or remains contained.

This distinction shapes everything that follows: reconciliation exposure, compliance defensibility, portfolio integrity, and long-term cost.

Accounting Authority: External Books Create Reconciliation Cycles

Accounting authority determines whether reporting reflects the books of record or synchronized copies.

Landytech consolidates investment data from external accounting systems. Journal entries originate outside the platform. Reporting updates after synchronization.

Asset Vantage maintains accounting inside a native ledger. Transactions are posted directly within the platform. Reporting derives from the same accounting entries that form the books.

This difference determines whether reconciliation is routine work or structurally reduced.

When accounting lives outside the platform:

• Reporting must be validated before circulation
  • Corrections depend on upstream systems
  • Month-end spans multiple environments
  • Teams reconcile before they analyze

When accounting originates inside the platform:

• Entries post once
  • Reporting reflects immediately
  • Corrections propagate automatically
  • Teams analyze without recurring validation

The result is measurable.

Dimension	Landytech	Asset Vantage	Operational Impact
Accounting Location	External systems	Native ledger	Landytech requires cross-system reconciliation. Asset Vantage eliminates recurring cross-system validation.
Reporting Basis	Aggregated data	Ledger-derived data	Landytech reporting requires confirmation before release. Asset Vantage reporting is structurally aligned with accounting.
Correction Handling	Upstream dependency	In-platform journal control	Landytech corrections require coordination. Asset Vantage corrections update all reporting immediately.
Month-End Close	Multi-system dependency	Single accounting cycle	Landytech close consumes coordination hours. Asset Vantage close centers on one ledger.
Ongoing Reconciliation	Embedded in workflow	Structurally minimized	Landytech allocates recurring team time to verification. Asset Vantage reduces validation workload.

This is not a feature distinction. It is a workload distinction.

Impact on Audit Trail Integrity

Compliance depends on a traceable accounting authority.

With external books, as in Landytech:

• Audit reviews require reconciliation between reporting outputs and external ledgers
  • Historical restatements must align across multiple systems
  • Audit confidence relies on documented validation steps

With in-platform accounting, as in Asset Vantage:

• Journal entries anchor every report
  • Audit trails link directly to posted transactions
  • Compliance reviews operate from a single accounting environment

The operational difference is defensibility.

In a multi-system model, teams prepare explanations alongside reports.
In a unified accounting model, reports derive from the same entries that form the books.

That distinction determines how confidently families present information to auditors and institutions.

Impact on Transparency and Control

Visibility shows performance. Authority controls performance.

When accounting is external:

• Families can view results
  • Adjustments require upstream intervention
  • Reporting reflects synchronized values

When accounting is internal:

• Journal entries update within the same environment
  • Ownership changes flow structurally
  • Value calculations align with posted entries

Control reduces coordination. Coordination consumes time. Over time, time converts into cost.

Accounting authority determines whether the platform reduces operational friction or embeds it.

Backdated Corrections: Where Reporting Breaks Under Pressure

Late private equity statements, valuation changes, and account adjustments are normal in active investing. When accounting sits outside the platform, reporting must wait for external correction and re-synchronization. When accounting sits inside the platform, correction and reporting are the same event.

Event	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Impact on Workflow and Trust
Late private equity NAV	Updated in external books, then refreshed into reporting	Posted as an accounting entry inside the platform	Landytech requires validation before circulation. Asset Vantage regenerates reports immediately.
Valuation revision	Sync-dependent adjustment	Direct journal restatement	Landytech teams coordinate across systems. Asset Vantage teams post once.
Account reclassification	Requires cross-system alignment	Updated at entity accounting level	Landytech introduces coordination steps. Asset Vantage preserves continuity.

The difference is operational. In one model, correction triggers coordination. In the other, correction triggers recalculation.

Impact on Multi-Asset Portfolios

Multi-asset portfolios expose drift when refresh cycles vary across asset classes. Public securities update frequently. Private equity, operating companies, and passion assets update on delayed schedules.

In Landytech:

• Performance reflects the last synchronized data state
  • Cross-asset comparisons require confirmation before external sharing
  • Portfolio views may temporarily diverge from accounting reality

In Asset Vantage:

• All asset classes post into unified accounting
  • Performance recalculates across entities automatically
  • Portfolio reporting remains aligned across financial and non-financial assets

As portfolios expand, timing gaps compound. Drift is not visible at a small scale. It becomes visible as complexity increases.

Impact on Real-Time Consistency

Real-time reporting is structural only when performance recalculates from accounting entries. Otherwise, teams must wait for synchronization across the platform.

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Workflow Impact
Source of performance	Performance calculated from aggregated data feeds synchronized from external systems	Performance is calculated directly from accounting entries posted inside the platform	In Landytech, performance updates depend on feed timing. In Asset Vantage, recalculation occurs upon posting.
Historical restatement	Requires external correction followed by a refresh cycle	Recalculated automatically from updated accounting books	In Landytech, teams validate and re-check before circulation. In Asset Vantage, reports regenerate without parallel reconciliation.
Cross-entity alignment	Alignment depends on synchronization across entities and accounts	Entity-level accounting keeps structures aligned by design	In Landytech, cross-entity reporting introduces coordination steps. In Asset Vantage, structural consistency is preserved automatically.

Multi-Entity Structures: Grouped Views Do Not Equal Entity Books

Family offices rarely operate through a single entity. They operate across complex structures, including trust companies, holding entities, operating vehicles, and special-purpose vehicles. Reporting across entities is not the same as maintaining books for each entity.

When a platform aggregates data, it can group entities for visibility. It does not replace entity-level accounting responsibility.

When accounting is managed within the platform, each entity maintains its own books, ownership structure, and transaction history.

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Workflow Impact
Entity structure	Grouped reporting views across entities	Dedicated accounting books per entity	Landytech presents consolidated visibility. Asset Vantage maintains legal accounting separation.
Ownership tracking	Ownership reflected in reporting layers	Ownership embedded in entity-level accounting	In Landytech, changes require coordination and refresh. In Asset Vantage, ownership updates recalculate automatically.
Inter-entity transactions	Managed through external accounting systems	Posted and reconciled within the platform	Landytech requires cross-system validation. Asset Vantage maintains transaction integrity within a single environment.

Impact on Ownership Changes and Compliance

Mid-year restructuring exposes architecture immediately. Trust reorganizations, beneficiary changes, or entity transfers must be reflected in both reporting and accounting.

With Landytech:

• Legal changes occur in external accounting systems
  • Reporting updates follow synchronization cycles
  • Compliance reviews reconcile across systems

With Asset Vantage:

• Ownership changes post inside entity books
  • Reporting reflects updated legal control immediately
  • Compliance traces adjustments to accounting entries

Compliance confidence depends on continuity between entity control and reporting outputs. Where that continuity breaks, review cycles expand.

Impact on Multigenerational Wealth Governance

Managing multigenerational wealth requires structural clarity across entities, beneficiaries, and investment vehicles. Visibility alone does not define governance.

In Landytech:

• Consolidated dashboards show exposure
  • Entity separation lives outside the reporting layer
  • Governance reviews depend on external accounting validation

In Asset Vantage:

• Each entity maintains accounting authority
  • Portfolio reporting reflects legal ownership structures
  • Governance discussions reference one accounting source

As structures expand across generations, clarity becomes structural rather than visual.

Private Equity and Alternative Investments: Stress Test for Platform Design

Private equity and alternative investments introduce delayed statements, capital calls, distributions, and valuation revisions. These events do not follow daily market cycles. They follow fund-level reporting schedules.

A data aggregation platform must wait for external accounting updates before its performance reflects reality. A platform that holds accounting internally recalculates performance from posted entries.

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Operational Impact
Capital calls	Reflected after the external accounting update and synchronization	Posted as an accounting entry within the entity’s books	In Landytech, performance alignment waits for a refresh. In Asset Vantage, exposure updates at posting.
Distributions	Requires an external ledger update before reporting refresh	Distribution recorded and recalculated inside the platform	Landytech introduces validation steps. Asset Vantage recalculates immediately.
Valuation lag	Performance reflects the last synchronized NAV	Valuation adjustment posted as a journal entry	Landytech teams confirm accuracy before sharing. Asset Vantage regenerates reports from updated books.

Private equity activity exposes timing differences that remain hidden in public market reporting.

Impact on Institutional Grade Analytics

Institutional grade analytics depend on performance derived from accounting truth. When performance is based on synchronized summaries, analytical depth depends on feed timing.

With Landytech:

• Performance calculations depend on synchronized investment data
  • Analytics reflect refreshed summaries
  • Cross-entity exposure analysis may require confirmation

With Asset Vantage:

• Performance originates from entity-level accounting entries
  • Analytics reflect posted capital activity and valuation adjustments
  • Exposure views align automatically across structures

Institutional-grade analytics require alignment among accounting, portfolio management, and reporting logic. Investment reporting loses precision when corrections do not propagate automatically, especially across multi-asset exposures.

Impact on Portfolio Reporting Accuracy

Portfolio reporting accuracy determines whether families and managers can rely on reported numbers without layered explanations.

In aggregation-based models:

• Corrections depend on refresh cycles
  • Multi-asset exposures may reflect interim misalignment
  • Validation becomes part of the reporting routine

In accounting-led architecture:

• Corrections post once and propagate across reporting
  • Multi-asset portfolio performance recalculates consistently
  • Reporting reflects the current state of accounting books

When private equity and alternative investments scale, precision becomes structural rather than cosmetic.

Reconciliation: Recurring Process or Eliminated by Design

Reconciliation appears operational. But in reality, it is architectural.

When reporting and accounting live in separate systems, reconciliation becomes a standing requirement. When reporting originates from the platform’s accounting books, reconciliation is reduced to exception handling rather than routine effort.

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Operational Impact
Source separation	Reporting synchronized from external accounting systems	Reporting generated from in-platform accounting	Landytech requires periodic validation between systems. Asset Vantage aligns reporting and books by design.
Monthly close cycle	Cross-system verification before circulation	Single-system closed process	Landytech introduces coordination steps. Asset Vantage reduces duplication of effort.
Error detection	Discrepancies identified during reconciliation reviews	Discrepancies surface at the posting stage	Landytech resolves mismatches after the fact. Asset Vantage resolves at the entry point.

Impact on Risk and Data Drift

Data consolidation across systems increases the risk of timing gaps and version inconsistencies. As scale expands across custodians, banks, and managers, drift accumulates.

In Landytech:

• Investment data flows from multiple external sources
  • Reporting accuracy depends on feed alignment
  • Small mismatches compound across portfolios

In Asset Vantage:

• Entries originate within the accounting layer
  • Portfolio reporting reflects posted books
  • Drift reduces because reporting does not rely on external refresh cycles

Risk exposure expands with the number of systems involved in producing a number.

Impact on Staffing and Productivity

Manual rework across portfolio management, compliance, and reporting reduces efficiency and diverts focus from strategic wealth management priorities.

With Landytech:

• Portfolio management teams validate before distribution
  • Compliance reviews cross-reference reports and external books
  • Support staff coordinate across institutions and systems

With Asset Vantage:

• Accounting and reporting operate within one environment
  • Validation routines reduce to exception management
  • Teams focus on analysis rather than rework

Productivity is not a feature outcome. It is a structural outcome.

Portfolio Analytics: Insight Without Authority Is Limited

Portfolio analytics can display allocation, exposure, and performance trends. The issue is not visualization. The issue is whether those numbers originate from accounting books or from synchronized summaries.

When performance is calculated from aggregated feeds, analytics reflect the last refreshed state. When performance is calculated from in-platform accounting entries, analytics reflect the posted financial reality.

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Operational Impact
Source of performance data	Aggregated investment data synchronized from external systems	Performance derived from accounting entries inside the platform	In Landytech, analytics depend on feed timing. In Asset Vantage, analytics update at posting.
Correction handling	Analytics adjust after external refresh	Analytics recalculate from corrected books	Landytech requires validation before circulation. Asset Vantage regenerates immediately.
Cross-entity exposure	Consolidated reporting layer across accounts	Entity-level accounting feeding portfolio views	Landytech introduces confirmation steps for entity alignment. Asset Vantage preserves structural consistency.

Analytics without accounting authority remain dependent on synchronization cycles.

Impact on Portfolio Management Discipline

Portfolio monitoring shows positions and returns. Portfolio management requires the ability to correct, restate, and preserve value across accounts.

With Landytech:

• Performance reflects synchronized data
  • Restatements require coordination with external accounting
  • Managers validate before adjusting strategy

With Asset Vantage:

• Adjustments post directly into accounting books
  • Performance recalculates across portfolios automatically
  • Strategy decisions reference updated accounting entries

Discipline in portfolio management depends on the immediacy of accounting alignment.

Impact on Informed Investment Decisions

Informed investment decisions require numbers that withstand audit and internal review.

In Landytech:

• Decision-making depends on synchronized reporting
  • Teams confirm figures before external discussion
  • Confidence relies on reconciliation routines

In Asset Vantage:

• Reporting originates from the accounting authority
  • Adjustments propagate across all portfolio views
  • Decision-making rests on one accounting source

Confidence increases when analytics and accounting originate from the same structural foundation..

Pricing Model: How Structure Influences Long-Term Cost

Pricing is not only the subscription cost. It reflects how a management platform scales as wealth, entities, and operational complexity expand.

Two models behave differently as portfolios grow:

• Asset-based pricing scales with assets under management
  • Structure-based pricing scales with operational scope

The difference becomes visible when families expand portfolios, add entities, or increase investment activity.

Growth Scenario	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Price Impact
Increase in assets under management	Subscription cost increases with asset value	Pricing not directly tied to asset market value	Market growth increases Landytech’s cost even without structural change. Asset Vantage cost remains stable relative to structure.
Market appreciation without new entities	Price rises as portfolio value rises	No automatic increase tied to valuation movement	Families pay more in Landytech during bull markets. Asset Vantage pricing does not fluctuate with valuation cycles.
Addition of new legal entities	Often increases the pricing tier due to the reporting scope	Structured pricing aligned to entity and accounting scope	Landytech pricing rises with reporting expansion. Asset Vantage aligns cost with actual accounting complexity.
Expansion into private equity or alternative investments	Higher data aggregation volume may influence pricing tier	Accounting scope expands within the existing structural framework	Landytech cost scales with reporting volume. Asset Vantage scales with defined structural requirements.
Multi-asset portfolio expansion	Asset-linked pricing compounds as exposure grows	Pricing linked to operational scope rather than asset value	At Landytech, diversification increases costs in proportion to value. In Asset Vantage, diversification does not automatically inflate subscription fees.

Impact of Asset-Based Pricing on Growing Portfolios

Asset-linked pricing increases cost as multi-asset portfolios expand and market exposure grows.

When pricing is linked directly to assets under management, costs increase even if operational effort remains constant.

With Landytech:

• Portfolio appreciation increases subscription cost
  • Asset growth during favorable market cycles raises annual expense
  • Diversification across asset classes increases reporting scope

With Asset Vantage:

• Cost aligns with structural scope, not market movement
  • Market volatility does not automatically change subscription
  • Growth in valuation does not trigger parallel cost escalation

In asset-linked pricing models, families pay more when markets rise, even if operational workload remains unchanged.

Impact on Total Cost of Ownership Over Time

Subscription pricing reflects only part of the long-term cost. Operational overhead compounds over the years.

With Landytech:

• Reconciliation effort persists as a recurring task
  • Integration management requires ongoing coordination
  • Validation routines consume internal team time

With Asset Vantage:

• Accounting and reporting operate in one environment
  • Fewer cross-system checks reduce recurring overhead
  • Operational burden stabilizes as structure scales

Total cost of ownership includes:

• Subscription fees
  • Internal staffing allocation
  • Reconciliation effort
  • Compliance review cycles
  • Technology dependency management

Over time, recurring validation and coordination shape the real platform cost more than headline pricing.

Technology Stack: Integration Dependency Versus Platform Control

Technology structure determines operational fragility. The more systems involved in producing a report, the more coordination is required to maintain it.

In aggregation-first digital platforms, reporting depends on integrations with external accounting systems, custodians, and data providers. Each connection becomes part of the operating chain.

In accounting-led architecture, accounting, reporting, and portfolio management operate within a single platform environment.

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Operational Impact
Core systems required	External accounting system + reporting platform + integrations	Unified accounting and reporting platform	Landytech depends on multiple environments. Asset Vantage reduces system layers.
Data flow model	Investment data aggregated and synchronized from external sources	Accounting entries originate inside the platform	Landytech requires feed monitoring. Asset Vantage relies on internal posting logic.
Integration exposure	Ongoing dependency on custodians, banks, and third-party connectors	Fewer external dependencies for core reporting	Landytech requires continuous integration management. Asset Vantage limits external coordination.
Data security surface area	Multiple systems handling financial data	Consolidated data environment	Landytech expands data security exposure across systems. Asset Vantage centralizes control.

Impact on Migration Risk and Continuity

Migration reveals structural complexity immediately.

With Landytech:

• Data must align across the reporting platform and external accounting systems
  • Historical performance depends on synchronized feeds
  • Transition requires validation across multiple systems

With Asset Vantage:

• Accounting books and reporting migrate together
  • Historical records remain inside one system’s logic
  • Validation occurs within a single accounting framework

When systems are stitched together, transformation involves parallel coordination. When systems are unified, continuity follows structure rather than integration mapping.

Operational fragility increases with each external dependency.

Impact on Long-Term Operational Resilience

Leadership transitions and system upgrades expose structural dependency.

Scenario	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Explicit Operational Consequence
CFO or Head of Finance exits	Knowledge of reconciliation routines and feed dependencies sits with individuals	Accounting logic embedded in the platform	At Landytech, transitions require knowledge transfer across systems. In Asset Vantage, workflow remains system-driven.
Integration failure with the custodian or the bank	Reporting may stall until the feed stabilizes	Core accounting and reporting remain operational	In Landytech, visibility depends on connector stability. In Asset Vantage, internal books remain intact.
Platform upgrade or vendor change	Requires coordination across the accounting system and the reporting platform	Single platform upgrade cycle	In Landytech, change affects multiple environments. In Asset Vantage, change remains contained.
Data security responsibility	Spread across the reporting vendor, the accounting system, and the connectors	Centralized within one environment	At Landytech, data security oversight extends to vendors. In Asset Vantage, control is consolidated.

Operational resilience determines whether a family office depends on individuals or on system architecture.

In integration-dependent environments:

• Continuity relies on staff familiarity with external systems
  • Spreadsheet checks often bridge reporting gaps
  • Vendor coordination becomes part of routine operations

In unified architecture:

• Accounting authority remains inside the platform
  • Reporting continuity does not depend on external synchronization
  • Fewer system layers reduce operational exposure

Resilience becomes visible when something changes. Architecture determines whether that change creates disruption or remains contained.

Operating Model: Reporting-Centric Versus Accounting-Led

An operating model defines where authority sits.

In a reporting-centric model, accounting lives outside the platform. Reporting depends on synchronization.

In an accounting-led model, accounting and reporting originate from the same books. Workflow follows posting logic.

Structural Comparison on Operating Model

Dimension	In Landytech	In Asset Vantage	Operational Impact
Source of authority	External accounting system	In-platform accounting books	Landytech reporting depends on external validation. Asset Vantage reporting follows posted entries.
Correction handling	Update externally, then refresh	Post once, recalculate automatically	Landytech introduces validation cycles. Asset Vantage reduces coordination steps.
Year-over-year continuity	Historical reporting reflects synchronized states	Historical reporting derived from continuous accounting books	Landytech may require re-verification during review. Asset Vantage preserves accounting continuity.
Operational posture	Reactive validation before circulation	Structural recalculation at entry	Landytech requires coordination under change. Asset Vantage embeds control at source.

The operating model determines whether the workflow begins with reconciliation or with posting.

Impact on Trust in Multi-Year Reporting

Multi-year reporting is where architecture becomes visible.

With Landytech:

• Historical performance depends on past synchronization states
  • Restatements require external alignment
  • Year-end review cycles may reintroduce validation steps

With Asset Vantage:

• Historical performance derives from continuous accounting books
  • Restatements update directly within entity records
  • Prior years remain structurally consistent

Trust compounds when performance, ownership, and adjustments originate from the same accounting authority across time.

Impact on Confidence During Leadership Transition

Leadership transitions test whether control lives in the system or in people.

With Landytech:

• Reporting knowledge spans the accounting system and the reporting platform
  • New leadership must understand cross-system validation routines
  • Institutional memory becomes operational dependency

With Asset Vantage:

• Accounting and reporting logic reside in one environment
  • Workflow continuity remains system-driven
  • Transition depends less on individual knowledge

Confidence during transition reflects architectural stability.

How to Evaluate Landytech Against Accounting-Led Alternatives

Platform selection should move beyond feature lists. The evaluation must examine structural behavior under pressure.

Evaluation Checklist

Evaluation Area	What to Examine in Landytech	What to Examine in Asset Vantage	What It Reveals
Correction handling	Where accounting resides and how refresh occurs	Whether correction and reporting are the same event	Determines coordination burden
Reconciliation exposure	Frequency of cross-system validation	Degree of native alignment between books and reports	Determines recurring workload
Compliance depth	Dependency on external accounting systems	Embedded audit trail within the platform	Determines defensibility
Workflow efficiency	Number of systems involved in producing a report	Single-system accounting and reporting logic	Determines operational scale impact
Structural clarity	Separation between reporting and accounting	Unified authority inside the platform	Determines long-term control

Questions That Reveal Platform Authority

Before selecting a solution, families and wealth managers should ask:

• Where does performance originate, accounting books or synchronized feeds
  • When a valuation changes, does reporting regenerate automatically
  • During ownership restructuring, does the platform reflect legal books or grouped views
  • How often is reconciliation required before circulation
  • Does the system reduce coordination as portfolios scale
  • Does reporting provide the structural confidence required for informed decisions
  • Does the architecture truly inform decision-making, or does it require external validation before action?

These questions move the evaluation away from feature lists and toward operational authority. A platform that supports informed decisions does so because accounting and reporting share the same structural foundation. A platform that merely informs decision-making through synchronized views still depends on external systems for validation.