At a glance
- The claim rests on a prior one: the software matters in ways a log-in fee cannot capture, and a platform built to identify growth opportunities, run the marketing around them, and measure what happens next is producing something closer to revenue than overhead.
- The direction should appeal to RIAs because the fixed fee is low, the variable fee is tied to actual results, and the vendor takes the risk that the tool will not perform; the harder question is attribution, where a pay-as-you-grow arrangement either creates genuine alignment or simply defers the disagreement.
- At what point is an asset won?
Eden Ovadia, CEO and co-founder of FINNY AI, argues on the WealthStack Podcast, as summarized by WealthManagement.com, that wealthtech's next pricing model should look more like a partnership than a license: outcome-based pricing, tying what a firm pays to the growth its software produces, fits AI-era tools better than the seat-based subscriptions FINNY has left behind. The claim rests on a prior one: the software matters in ways a log-in fee cannot capture, and a platform built to identify growth opportunities, run the marketing around them, and measure what happens next is producing something closer to revenue than overhead.
That is the difference the pay-as-you-grow pitch is selling, and FINNY has put a number on it. This publication's records show the company prices marketing on a share of the assets it wins: a $50 monthly platform fee plus a 20-basis-point asset charge, so marketing stops being a fixed annual software expense and becomes a recurring cost of growth.
The direction should appeal to RIAs because the fixed fee is low, the variable fee is tied to actual results, and the vendor takes the risk that the tool will not perform; the harder question is attribution, where a pay-as-you-grow arrangement either creates genuine alignment or simply defers the disagreement.
At what point is an asset won? If the platform generates the lead, the advisor still has to run the meeting and close the account, and if that client moves additional assets a year later, the contract has to decide whether the outcome is the platform's win or the advisor's. A contract that cannot answer those questions in data both sides can audit, preferably from the RIA's own books, has not actually defined an outcome.
This is the contract version of the AI adoption gap: mature AI users already have client-acquisition data of their own and can audit a vendor's attribution claims, while lighter users cannot. Pay-as-you-grow therefore rewards practices that walk in with their own measurement standards and leaves everyone else paying for the vendor's version of the math.
The podcast episode treats attribution and measurement as the heart of FINNY's approach to partnerships, and the vendor is right to put them there: outcome-based describes the payment trigger rather than the fairness of the split. The due-diligence question is simple: can the contract tell an RIA's auditor which asset the platform grew? Ask for that definition in writing before the first basis-point charge runs.
Reported by the Practice management desk from WealthManagement.com and Wealth Advisor Daily records. Published . Corrections