Three firms I spoke to in the past six months were all using different practice management platforms. One was on Intelliflo, one on Xplan, one on Plannr. All three had the same complaint: they were not getting enough out of it. In two of the three cases, the problem was not the platform. It was that nobody had set it up to match how the firm actually worked.
That is the real question behind any platform comparison: not which tool has the longest feature list, but which one your team will actually use, and which one you can configure without hiring a developer.
This article compares the three platforms on the dimensions that matter most for a firm of one to two hundred advisers in the UK: workflow automation, integration, pricing model, and the practical cost of getting it running.
What does each platform actually do well?
Each of these platforms serves the same broad purpose: case management, client records, workflow, and regulatory documentation. But they differ sharply in how they approach that job.
Intelliflo is the market-share leader in the UK IFA space, with more than 2,200 firms having migrated to its current platform[1]. Its strength is breadth. The API ecosystem is mature, integrations with tools like wealthLink and zeroKey are established, and the workflow engine is configurable enough that a firm can set it up to reflect its existing internal processes rather than bending the firm around the software[1]. Atkins Bland, for example, configured Intelliflo workflows during onboarding in a way that reduced reliance on manual checklists[1]. That kind of out-of-the-box configurability matters because it shortens the gap between “we went live” and “we’re actually getting value.”
Xplan is Iress’s platform, and it is the tool of choice for larger, more complex firms and networks. Its reporting and analytics capabilities are deeper than Intelliflo’s out of the box, and it handles multi-adviser, multi-office structures well. The trade-off is that Xplan rewards investment. It is not a platform you get value from quickly. Configuration requires either internal expertise or external consultancy. For a ten-adviser firm without a dedicated operations lead, the learning curve is real and the risk of underuse is high.
Plannr is the newest of the three and takes a deliberately different approach. It is built around a cleaner user interface and a more modern integration model, aiming at smaller firms and newer businesses that want something that works without significant configuration. It does not yet have the integration depth of Intelliflo or the reporting depth of Xplan, but it is faster to get running and the user experience is noticeably more modern. For a firm starting from scratch or unhappy with legacy software, that has real value.
How does automation actually work in each platform?
Automation in practice management means different things to different people. In this context I mean: can the system route tasks automatically, trigger actions based on case status, and reduce the number of manual steps between a client event and a completed piece of work?
All three platforms offer workflow automation, but at different levels of sophistication and configurability.
Intelliflo’s workflow engine is its strongest automation feature. Once configured, it can trigger task sequences based on case milestones, route work to the right team member, and surface outstanding actions without someone having to remember to check. The key word is “once configured.” The setup investment is real, but the payoff compounds. Firms that have done it properly report that the busiest period of onboarding a new client now runs largely on its own, with advisers stepping in for the decisions rather than the administration.
Xplan’s automation is more powerful in absolute terms but harder to access. It supports complex conditional logic, rules-based routing, and deep reporting on workflow completion rates. For a large network that wants to audit compliance processes at scale, that matters. For a firm of twenty advisers, it is usually more than you need.
Plannr’s automation is younger. The core case management and task routing works, but the conditional logic available to you is less mature than in the other two. The team is building it out, and the pace of development is fast, but if you need complex workflow automation today, you will find the limits sooner on Plannr than on the others.
The platform that works best is not the one with the most features. It is the one your team uses consistently enough that the data in it is worth trusting.
What does it cost to get each platform running properly?
Licensing cost is only part of the number. The real cost is licensing plus implementation plus the opportunity cost of the time your team spends during the transition.
Intelliflo publishes pricing by module. The base practice management licence plus integrations is typically in the range that a ten-adviser firm would budget around ten to twenty thousand pounds a year, depending on which modules and integrations you need. Migration takes two to three weeks on average[1]. That figure assumes a reasonably clean data set coming out of your existing system. If your data is messy, it will take longer.
Xplan is priced at the network or enterprise level in most cases. If you are accessing it through a network, the cost is built into your network fee. If you are licensing it directly, you are typically looking at a higher per-user cost than Intelliflo, plus a non-trivial implementation cost if you want it configured properly.
Plannr is more transparent on pricing and positions itself as accessible for smaller firms. The lower licensing cost is real, but factor in that you may need to supplement it with integrations for things the other platforms do natively.
Which platform fits which type of firm?
This is the question the comparison is actually trying to answer, and the honest answer is that the right choice depends on where your firm is now and where you want it to be in three years.
Intelliflo is the default right answer for most established UK advice firms. It is not perfect, but the integration ecosystem, the UK-specific compliance workflows, and the volume of firms already on it (which means more consultants who know it and more integrations built for it) make it the lowest-risk choice for a firm that wants a platform to work reliably without excessive ongoing maintenance.
Xplan is the right answer if you are part of a network that mandates it, or if you run a firm of fifty-plus advisers with a dedicated operations function and the appetite to invest in proper configuration. It will repay that investment with better data and better reporting, but only if you actually make the investment.
Plannr is the right answer if you are a newer or smaller firm that wants to start cleanly, values a better user experience, and is comfortable with the trade-off that some integrations and workflow features are still maturing. It is also worth watching if you are currently on a legacy system and considering a move: the migration path is simpler and the ongoing UX will be less of a drag on adoption.
What to do before you make a decision
If you are actively evaluating platforms right now, the following sequence will save you time.
First, audit your current workflow. Before you compare feature lists, write down the ten most common processes your operations team runs each week. For each one, note how many manual steps it involves and where errors or delays most often happen. This gives you a clear brief for any demo or trial.
Second, test against your real data and real processes. Ask each vendor for a structured trial or demo that uses your actual case types, not a generic walkthrough. The things that look good on a feature comparison often look different when you run your own processes through them.
Third, check the integration list carefully. List every tool your firm currently uses and confirm whether each integrates with the platform you are evaluating, and whether that integration is native or requires a middleware tool like Zapier or Make. A platform that requires three middleware connections to talk to your CRM and your back-office system is more fragile than one that does it natively.
Fourth, cost the implementation honestly. Get a migration estimate in writing, including your data preparation work. Factor in staff time during the transition, not just the licence fee.
One note on vendor stability: the practice management software market is consolidating. Gartner flagged in its 2026 Agentic AI Hype Cycle that vendors are rebranding legacy tools with AI language without adding substantive capability[2]. When you evaluate automation claims from any of these vendors, ask them to show you the automation in a working environment rather than in a slide. If a vendor cannot demo the workflow they are describing, the feature may not exist in the form being sold.
Choosing the right platform is a decision that shapes how your firm operates for the next five to ten years, so it is worth spending a month to get it right rather than a week. If you want to think through which option fits your firm’s specific situation, a discovery call with Cordrey Consulting is a good place to start.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute regulated financial advice or a compliance opinion. Consult a qualified compliance professional for advice specific to your firm.
Sources
- [1] Intelliflo, “Intelliflo Insights: firm migration and workflow case studies” (2026). Cited for migration volume, typical migration duration, and Atkins Bland workflow configuration case. Vendor-sourced.
- [2] Gartner, “Hype Cycle for Agentic AI 2026” (2026). Cited for ‘agent-washing’ observation regarding rebranding of legacy automation tools.