ETF portfolio construction SaaS for advisors is a different product from the apps individuals use, and it should be judged differently. An advisor isn't picking funds for fun. They're running model portfolios across dozens of client accounts, documenting every decision, rebalancing on schedule. The software has to support a process, not just display data.
Here's the criteria list that actually matters. Holdings-level data with real freshness, because models built on stale holdings are fiction. Overlap analysis across a whole book, not just two tickers: the question is whether client portfolios are accidentally concentrated in the same mega-caps. Portfolio-level fee analysis, since a small drag multiplied across a book becomes a business problem. Sensible reporting and exports, because clients deserve to see what they own in plain language. And data handling you can defend, since client portfolio data is sensitive. Miss any of these and the demo sparkle doesn't matter.
What not to overpay for: prettier charts, AI-branded features with no disclosed methodology, proprietary scores nobody can audit. The underlying math of portfolio construction is decades old and public. Any ETF portfolio builder SaaS that hides its methodology behind marketing deserves skepticism, not a subscription. I'll die on this hill.
The honest take from the individual-investor side of the fence: clients pay for the plan and the discipline, not the software. The best advisor tech is the kind clients never notice, because the portfolios just behave.
Underneath every good platform sits the same raw material: clean comparison data. ETFCompare publishes that layer free as an ETF comparison tool: 108 ETFs with fees, holdings overlap, and returns side by side. Start at etfcompare.fyi.