Advisor Terminal vs Conquest Planning: An Honest Head-to-Head
Conquest Planning is a deterministic planning engine trusted by six of the top ten North American financial institutions, with a compliance and scale story most challengers cannot match. We compare it against Advisor Terminal's full practice platform, row by row, and print every place Conquest genuinely wins.
Conquest Planning is not trying to be an all in one practice platform, and it does not pretend otherwise. It is a planning engine built on a deterministic calculation core the company calls Strategic Advice Manager, and it has become one of the most credible planning systems in the industry. Six of the top ten North American financial institutions license it, and the company reports crossing 2 million plans created in 2026.
That is a real, earned position. It is also a different product than Advisor Terminal. Conquest generates a plan. It does not capture the meeting that produced the plan, does not hold the client record the plan lives on, does not manage the tasks the plan creates, and it does not touch the trade that implements it. Those functions live in whatever other tools a practice or enterprise stitches around it.
This comparison goes row by row. Where Conquest is genuinely stronger, and there are real places where it is, we say so with the same weight as anywhere Advisor Terminal wins.
How to read this comparison
Conquest sells one function extremely well: turning client data into a compliant, explainable financial plan. Advisor Terminal is a practice operating system where planning is one native module among several, alongside the client record, meeting capture, tasks, documents, and rebalancing. The two products fully overlap only in the planning row. The table below reflects that honestly instead of forcing a false apples to apples read across categories where only one product actually competes.
Platform Scope
| Advisor Terminal | Conquest Planning | |
|---|---|---|
| Client records | Households, corporations, and trusts modeled as linked managed entities | No native CRM or contact management; plan data is entered or imported per client |
| Task and workflow management | Workboard with entity-linked, multi-assignee tasks | Not included |
| Portfolio rebalancing and trade planning | Portfolio Shift computes tax-aware rebalancing recommendations across funds, ETFs, equities, and cash; the advisor executes through their own custodian | Not included |
| Document storage | Vault stores documents directly on the client record | Not included as a standalone document repository |
Meeting Intelligence
| Advisor Terminal | Conquest Planning | |
|---|---|---|
| Meeting capture | Native audio recording on desktop and mobile with live transcription | Not included; reached only through a 2026 third-party integration with meeting-capture tool Zocks |
| AI note drafting | Qira drafts structured notes surfacing decisions, action items, and trades discussed | Not applicable; Conquest receives meeting output from partner tools to update a plan rather than capturing or drafting notes itself |
| Note finalization for compliance | Notes reach a durable attested freeze with dated addenda | Not applicable, there is no meeting note product |
Financial Planning Depth
| Advisor Terminal | Conquest Planning | |
|---|---|---|
| Planning engine model | Wealth Engine runs Monte Carlo projections natively against the client record | Strategic Advice Manager, a deterministic engine that generates a specific auditable strategy instead of a probability curve |
| Corporate, trust, and estate planning depth | Corporations and trusts are modeled as native managed entities; estate and business succession scenario depth is newer | Native, mature support for corporate, trust, joint-account, business succession, and multi-jurisdiction estate scenarios, built over six years for enterprise books |
| Plan generation throughput at scale | Plans build directly against the live client record; no independent throughput benchmark is published | Company-reported reduction from an industry-cited 10 to 17 hours down to about 15 minutes per plan, with a reported fourfold increase in plans built per advisor at enterprise customers |
| Recommendation audit trail | Projection assumptions are visible in the plan; not built as a standalone regulator-facing audit product | Every recommendation traces to inspectable deterministic logic, marketed as defensible to regulators across US, Canadian, and UK jurisdictions |
Scale, Integrations, and Market Reach
| Advisor Terminal | Conquest Planning | |
|---|---|---|
| Integration marketplace and embeddability | Focused native feature set; the platform is designed to be the advisor's primary workspace | Open two-way API already embedded inside Advisor360, BNY Pershing X's Wove, and PlannrCRM, plus a 2026 integration with meeting-capture tool Zocks |
| Installed base and track record | Newer platform, rapid release cadence since launch | Operating since 2020, reports over 2 million plans created, and counts 6 of the top 10 North American financial institutions as customers |
| Go-to-market and pricing access | Self-serve, practice-level access built for independent advisors | Primarily custom, quote-only enterprise contracts; a Canadian dealer-network per-plan tier exists, but there is no self-serve signup comparable to independent-advisor SaaS |
The pattern in the table
Three rows above go to Conquest, and they are not close calls.
Recommendation audit trail. Because Strategic Advice Manager is deterministic rather than a Monte Carlo or generative model, every recommendation traces back to specific, inspectable logic. For a bank or insurer compliance desk, that is a structural advantage a probability curve cannot fully replace.
Corporate, trust, and estate depth. Conquest built native support for business succession, multi-jurisdiction estates, and joint accounts over six years serving the largest wealth platforms in North America. Advisor Terminal models corporations and trusts as first-class managed entities, and that scenario depth is real, but it is newer.
Plan throughput at scale. Conquest's enterprise customers report going from an industry-cited 10 to 17 hours per plan down to about 15 minutes, with roughly four times more plans built per advisor. That is a demonstrated productivity number, not a marketing adjective.
Feature checklist
The checklist below shows the same shape as the spec table: Conquest is dense in the planning column and empty in almost every row that describes running a practice day to day, while carrying a genuine lead in embeddability and audit-trail depth.
| Advisor Terminal | Conquest Planning | |
|---|---|---|
| CRM with households, corporations, and trusts as linked entities | Included | Not included |
| Native meeting capture and transcription | Included | Not included |
| AI-drafted structured meeting notes with compliance-grade finalization | Included | Not included |
| Financial planning and forecasting engine | Included | Included |
| Deterministic, regulator-facing recommendation audit trail | Not included | Included |
| Portfolio rebalancing and trade planning | Included | Not included |
| Task and workflow management linked to client entities | Included | Not included |
| Document vault on the client record | Included | Not included |
| Open API for embedding into third-party platforms | Not included | Included |
| Native corporate, trust, and estate planning scenarios | Partial | Included |
IncludedPartial or limitedNot offered
What the gap actually means day to day
A plan is not a meeting. In a Conquest-centered stack, a client conversation happens somewhere else, gets captured by a separate tool such as Zocks, and only then reaches Conquest to update or generate a plan. The tasks the meeting produced, the documents the client sent, and the trade the plan implies all live in other systems again.
In Advisor Terminal, the same meeting is recorded natively on desktop or mobile. Qira drafts the note. The plan updates in the Wealth Engine against the same client record. Action items land on the Workboard, and Portfolio Shift proposes the trade. Nothing changes systems in between, and the advisor still executes every trade through their own custodian.
If your practice already sits inside a bank-grade compliance function built around Conquest's audit trail, or your book leans on the estate and business succession depth it built over six years, that is a real, defensible reason to keep it and connect it in. It is exactly why Conquest built an open API and already lives inside platforms like Advisor360 and BNY Pershing X's Wove.
Strengths and trade-offs
Strengths
- One system covers the CRM, meeting capture, planning, rebalancing, and tasks instead of five separate tools
- Meeting notes turn into tasks, plan updates, and the compliance file automatically, on the same client record
- Wealth Engine and Portfolio Shift run natively against the same entity Conquest would otherwise have to receive from another system
- Canadian data residency by default
Trade-Offs
- Younger platform with a shorter public track record than an enterprise incumbent operating since 2020
- No open embeddable API or third-party integration directory comparable to Conquest's
- Planning depth for the most complex corporate, trust, and estate scenarios is newer than a dedicated planning specialist's
Strengths
- Deterministic Strategic Advice Manager engine gives every recommendation an inspectable, regulator-facing audit trail
- Deep, mature support for corporate, trust, joint-account, business succession, and multi-jurisdiction estate scenarios
- Proven at enterprise scale, with over 2 million plans created and 6 of the top 10 North American financial institutions as customers
- Open two-way API already embedded inside Advisor360, BNY Pershing X's Wove, and PlannrCRM
Trade-Offs
- No native CRM, meeting capture, task management, or portfolio rebalancing; it does one job and depends on other tools for the rest
- Built for enterprise and dealer-network procurement; pricing is a custom quote or a Canadian per-plan dealer tier, not a simple independent-advisor signup
- Minimal presence yet among independent US advisors; Conquest has grown almost entirely through enterprise and dealer partnerships and says direct distribution to independent US advisors is only beginning in 2026
Who should choose which
Choose Conquest Planning if your priority is the deepest deterministic planning engine available, your practice sits inside an enterprise or bank-dealer channel that already licenses it, or your book leans heavily toward complex corporate, trust, and estate scenarios where an explainable audit trail matters most.
Choose Advisor Terminal if you want one system for the whole client relationship: meeting capture and Qira-drafted notes, the Wealth Engine's own projections, Portfolio Shift's rebalancing recommendations, and the tasks and documents that follow from a meeting, without sending the client's conversation to a separate vendor first.
We are a party to this comparison, which is why every row above is specific and checkable. The methodology behind that, and the corrections it has already forced on our own drafts, is in How We Run Comparisons. If a row is wrong, tell us and we will fix it in public.