Author: Levi Folk, Founder of Data Front

Publish Date: June 12, 2025

Timely, accurate, and compliant data reporting isn’t just a nice-to-have in asset management—it’s mission-critical. 

But here’s the dilemma: Do you build a custom in-house reporting system tailored to your firm’s unique workflows and data architecture? Or do you buy a ready-made solution that promises speed, scalability, and built-in compliance?

The wrong choice can lead to prolonged timelines, increased budgets and fragile systems.

For asset managers navigating growing regulatory demands, changing investor expectations, and competition, this decision shapes more than your tech stack. It shapes your agility, cost, and ultimately, your ability to scale.

In this article, we unpack the core considerations behind the buy-versus-build debate, with a lens focused squarely on the needs of modern asset management firms. From compliance burdens and cost structures to integration ease and innovation velocity, we’ll help you evaluate which route best fits your firm, not just today but for the road ahead.

The Reporting Imperative

Asset managers today face evolving regulatory requirements and new product developments that will impact any decision to build an in-house reporting solution. In this environment, traditional reporting methods can quickly become a liability. 

Modern enterprise data reporting platforms are designed to be agile and cost-efficient. They ensure your firm meets compliance demands and scales with your growth. 

So, should you build a custom solution, or is buying off-the-shelf the smarter choice? 

Buy Vs. Build For Enterprise Data Reporting: Key Factors To Consider

1. Cost Efficiency and Hidden Expenses

There are up-front costs to building or buying, and there is no guarantee in pricing structure with either solution, so it's best to think about the cost variability of either approach.

In the former case, developing an in-house reporting solution is likely to have greater cost risks because there is far less certainty around software development, especially when building a reporting solution from scratch. Estimating software development is notoriously inaccurate and that of course will compound the bigger the size of the project. 

On the flip side, vendor costs are not fixed, and once clients are locked into vendor technology, arbitrary cost increases can occur. Due diligence in the initial contract phase mitigates this risk by preventing unforeseen cost increases. 

With most vendor solutions, cost increases are typically predictable and covered under defined MSAs. This predictability can be crucial when budgeting for future growth and ensuring a solid return on investment. In contrast, in-house solutions can have hidden costs, such as ongoing maintenance, staffing, and system upgrades that can quickly add up. 

2. Regulatory and Compliance Pressures

Asset management firms are under constant regulatory scrutiny. New rules from performance reporting to accessibility requirements, like the recent accessibility mandates in Canada and  Europe, demand agile solutions that can adapt quickly.

There is often an expectation that building an in-house reporting solution will not require regular maintenance and upkeep, and this is probably the biggest misjudgment when costing out the project. 

As soon as regulation changes, all reporting solutions will require upgrades to ensure that reports adhere to the new regulations. For example, all web and PDF reports must be accessible through screen readers, which requires a major upgrade to reporting technology and output. 

Outsourcing does not guarantee adherence to new regulations, and asset managers may be naively thinking their reports are compliant because they are outsourced. I can think of many examples where that is not the case. 

Licensing a SaaS platform should come with built-in compliance updates. Vendors will roll out patches and updates when regulations change, keeping you compliant without needing constant internal rework. However, don’t assume you are getting those updates built into the price.

On the flip side, it's common to go through a two-year buildout of a reporting solution only to find that regulations have changed. The upshot is that maintenance costs and budgets are typically underestimated before project kick-off.

2. The Cost-Benefit Analysis

The really difficult thing to measure is the efficiency of the system you build. Having worked in financial reporting for over 15 years, we have iterated on reporting solutions over time by identifying inefficiencies, improving architecture and design, and leveraging new technologies. 

There is no right way to build a reporting application. Still, there are more efficient and less efficient approaches, and basic solutions with hard-coded rather than data-driven rules can be very inefficient. They are more costly to set up and change, adding significant costs over time.

You will pay the cost in dollars and time. A truly flexible, automated reporting solution will lead to shorter product launches and fewer resources utilized without sacrificing customizations. 

In my experience, many in-house solutions sacrifice one or all of these goals. When launching new funds or products, timing is everything. An in-house solution might seem ideal because of its customizability, but the unwanted flipside of that customizability is diminished automation.

One of the biggest effects of efficiency gains or losses is time. Launching a new fund can require tremendous resource utilization to source and add new data properties. A knock-on effect of adding new data properties, e.g., ESG data, is that your reporting solution cannot adapt to a changing data schema. The entire process will require engaging IT resources, which can compromise project timelines and add significant costs.

Custom-built systems often become overly complex and difficult to modify as business needs evolve. A SaaS platform's regular updates and focus on scalable, rules-based architecture help mitigate long-term risks and technical debt.

4. Flexibility and Integration

One of the most critical considerations is ensuring that your reporting system can adapt to new business needs and integrate seamlessly with other enterprise systems. 

Modern SaaS platforms leverage rules-based, data-driven reporting. This means a single, flexible template can adjust to various data schemas, reducing the need for endless customizations. Such systems can handle everything from performance reporting to changing regulatory requirements.

A key advantage of buying a platform is the ease of integration. APIs ensure that your reporting system can communicate with other business applications, such as CRM systems, risk management tools, or financial analytics software.

5. Key Person Risk

When you choose a vendor, you gain more than just software; you gain a partner. With regular feedback loops from a broad client base, vendors are often at the forefront of innovation, integrating technologies like AI without the cost burden on your firm.

In contrast, a custom-built solution can become a liability if key team members leave, leaving you with an application that’s difficult to maintain. With a vendor, you’re insulated from such risks, enjoying the peace of mind with a fully supported, stable platform.

Shared Expertise and Ongoing Support

Another benefit is the collective intelligence from serving a diverse client base. Vendors gather feedback from multiple organizations, which fuels a robust pipeline of improvements and innovations. 

Buy Vs. Build: What To Consider In Your Situation?

Before deciding, asset managers should ask critical questions to weigh their options effectively.

• What is your current and projected data reporting volume?
• Do you have the in-house expertise to maintain a custom solution long-term?
• How will regulatory changes impact your reporting requirements?
• Can your internal team manage integration with other systems seamlessly?

The Future of Data Reporting in Asset Management

The decision between buying versus building an enterprise data reporting solution boils down to balancing speed, cost, and risk. 

For asset managers aiming to stay agile and compliant, a SaaS platform offers a compelling value proposition—driving continuous innovation while mitigating the dangers of technical debt and compliance pitfalls.