ONINO vs. iCapital vs. Moonfare vs. Addepar: Which WealthTech Software Fits Your Firm?

Three categories, four companies, the stack you actually live in

A wealth-tech buyer evaluating these four is usually solving one of three problems. Naming the problem first prevents the most common mistake: comparing platforms that aren't actually competing.

Issuance & operations. You want to create your own regulated instrument, a profit-participation right for an SME deal, a real-estate Nachrangdarlehen, a tokenized fund share, a cooperative member share, and run the full investor lifecycle (KYC, subscription, register, distributions, reporting, secondary). This is the issuer side. Only one of the four, ONINO, operates at this layer for the European market. The reference architecture is regulated under eWpG and MiFID II, with Cashlink as the BaFin-supervised crypto-securities registry where applicable.

Distribution. You already have client capital and you want access to institutional alternative products, large-cap PE funds, structured notes, evergreen vehicles, packaged into something that fits an advisor workflow with a digital subscription, lower minimums, and ongoing servicing. This is the distribution layer. iCapital is the dominant US-anchored player here; Moonfare is the European-native equivalent oriented toward HNW individuals and bank-distributed wealth clients.

Reporting & analytics. You hold a complex book, public, private, illiquid, multi-currency, multi-entity, and you need an institutional-grade view across custodians and asset classes, with multi-generational reporting and a calculation engine sophisticated enough for trusts and partnerships. This is the reporting layer. Addepar is the category standard for large RIAs and family offices, particularly in the US.

The same firm can sit in all three categories simultaneously, but the buying decisions, the budgets, and the internal owners are different. An MFO's chief operating officer owns the issuance/operations layer. The investment team owns distribution access. The CFO and reporting function own Addepar-class reporting. Trying to evaluate all four against a single "wealth-tech RFP" is how procurement goes off the rails.

For a broader 10-way scan of the European wealth-tech market, including Altoo, QPLIX, Fincite, Avaloq, Temenos, and FNZ alongside the four covered here, see the companion piece on the best digital investment platforms for private wealth managers in Europe.

ONINO vs. iCapital vs. Moonfare vs. Addepar, feature-by-feature

The cleanest way to read this comparison is by layer (issuance / distribution / reporting), and then by the four dimensions that show up in almost every buyer evaluation: regulatory footprint, instrument coverage, custodian/registry integration, and pricing model.

A few things this table makes obvious.

Only ONINO is instrument-native, meaning the platform is designed around the legal instrument being issued, not around a fund product being distributed. iCapital and Moonfare consume institutional fund products that already exist somewhere upstream; Addepar reads what's already in custody.

Only ONINO operates with German eWpG digital-securities registry support, and only ONINO carries out tokenization on a regulated EU rail (with Cashlink as the BaFin-supervised registry operator and ERC-3643 / ONCHAINID on the on-chain side). iCapital uses DLT for internal record-keeping but does not issue on-chain digital securities; Moonfare and Addepar have no tokenization architecture at all.

iCapital has the broadest distribution reach by far, but the entire model is downstream of an asset manager that has already issued a fund. For an MFO that wants to structure its own co-investment, iCapital is the wrong layer.

Which platform fits which firm

The buyer who searches for "iCapital vs Moonfare vs Addepar vs ONINO" is usually one of three personas. Each has a different right answer.

If you're a multi-family office (MFO) or asset manager

The relevant question is build vs. license for your own deal flow, not which marketplace to plug into. If you're regularly structuring direct deals or co-investments for your client base, real estate, private credit, growth equity, SME financing, your operational bottleneck is investor onboarding, register management, distributions, and reporting, not access to brand-name PE funds. That is the ONINO problem set: a regulated, white-label issuance and operations platform under your brand.

A pure distribution platform (iCapital, Moonfare) is the right choice only if the MFO is outsourcing its co-investment programme to a third-party feeder universe, which means handing the client relationship, the fee economics, and the instrument design to a counterparty. Most MFOs over a certain size resist this trade because the proprietary deal flow is the relationship.

Addepar belongs in the stack regardless. It does not compete with any of the others; it consolidates the book.

If you're an SPV operator or direct issuer

Real-estate developer, project company, energy cooperative, club deal manager, anyone whose business is to repeatedly structure a vehicle and onboard 50–500 investors. None of iCapital, Moonfare, or Addepar is designed for you. You are the issuer; you need issuance infrastructure, not a distribution channel.

The buying decision here is build-vs-buy on your own platform, and the most common reason a build fails is the regulatory layer (eWpG registry, AML5/KYC providers, MiFID II classification, audit trail). This is the layer ONINO operates on your behalf.

If you're a bank, RIA, or wealth-platform buyer

The buying decision is more layered, because banks and RIAs typically run their own client book and want a stack that covers issuance (for clients they advise on SME or private-market financing), distribution (for clients buying institutional alts), and reporting (for the consolidated view they show those clients).

For a bank or RIA whose clients are issuing, for example, a regional bank's SME book, the right architecture is a white-label digital securities platform under the bank's brand, with regulatory delegation to the platform operator. This is the Volksbank model. iCapital does not operate at this layer.

For a wealth firm whose clients are buying institutional alts in size, large RIAs in the US, private banks distributing PE allocations, iCapital is the default distribution stack, with Moonfare as the European-native alternative for HNW-focused books.

For consolidated reporting across all of that, Addepar is the category standard for firms over a certain AUM threshold.

When ONINO wins, and when the others win

The honest comparison: each platform wins in a specific buying scenario. Naming the scenarios explicitly is more useful than feature checklists.

iCapital

iCapital wins when the buyer is a wealth manager, typically US RIA, IBD, or private bank, whose clients want digital subscription access to a broad menu of brand-name third-party alternative funds (Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, BlackRock, Pantheon, AXA IM Alts, Partners Capital), integrated with the advisor's existing portfolio management or UMA workflow. The advisor wants to deliver alts without becoming an asset manager themselves.

iCapital also wins when the buyer needs deep US custodian and fund-admin integrations and is operating primarily under SEC/FINRA rules. Its EU footprint is growing (regulated entities in Portugal and the UK; senior leadership in Zurich; partnerships with European GPs), but the centre of gravity is North America.

Where iCapital does not fit: you are an issuer, not a distributor. You want a digital security under your brand. You operate in DACH and need eWpG-native instruments. Your customers are SME issuers, real estate developers, or cooperatives.

Moonfare

Moonfare wins when the buyer is a European HNW investor (or a wealth firm that wants to give its HNW clients PE exposure under partner-bank branding, the Berenberg model), with €50K–€100K tickets, comfortable in a Luxembourg feeder structure (SCSp/SCA), and willing to pay 0.5–1% management plus a setup fee on top of the underlying GP fees. The product is a slick, digital, qualified-investor-grade front-end into brand-name PE/VC funds.

Moonfare also wins when the wealth firm wants to white-label PE access without taking on the structuring work, Moonfare operates the Lux feeder, the regulatory wrapper, and the operational stack; the bank brings the client.

Where Moonfare does not fit: the MFO wants to structure its own co-investment, not buy access into Moonfare's preselected fund universe. The asset manager wants to issue something other than a Lux PE feeder, a Genussrecht, a Nachrangdarlehen, a tokenized fund share, a cooperative member share. There is no tokenization layer.

Addepar

Addepar wins when the buyer is a large RIA, MFO, or single-family office that needs institutional-grade portfolio aggregation across custodians, asset classes, currencies, and ownership structures, with reporting that holds up for trusts, partnerships, and multi-generational wealth. The product is the calculation and visualization engine for what is already in the book.

Addepar also wins when the firm already runs a heterogeneous custody and fund-admin stack, and the value of unifying that data into one reporting layer outweighs the per-asset SaaS economics, a calculus that usually pencils above ~$500M AUM.

Where Addepar does not fit: the firm needs to create, structure, distribute, or transact instruments, Addepar is read-only. It is the back-office reporting layer, not the front-office capital-formation layer.

ONINO

ONINO wins when the buyer needs to issue and operate its own regulated digital security under EU rules, including the instruments European mid-market finance actually uses (Genussrechte, Nachrangdarlehen, eWpG digital securities, equity tokens, tokenized fund shares, cooperative member shares), and wants a white-label platform under its own brand with the regulatory architecture (eWpG registry, KYC/AML, MiFID II classification, optional on-chain compliance) operated as a service.

ONINO also wins when the buyer is European, instrument-flexible, and looking at the institutional case for tokenization with a regulated EU rail underneath, not a US-style fund-of-funds distribution model and not a crypto-native protocol. The Volksbank partnership is the institutional reference point: a regulated regional bank operating digital securities under eWpG, with ONINO running the regulatory and technical layer.

Where ONINO does not fit (honestly): you want a US RIA-channel distribution platform for institutional third-party funds, iCapital is the deeper fit. You want a slick HNW PE front-end with a Lux feeder structure and a curated fund menu, Moonfare is the deeper fit. You want a consolidated reporting engine across an already-existing complex book, Addepar is the deeper fit. ONINO is upstream of all three.

Book a demo

If you're an MFO, asset manager, or bank evaluating how to operate digital securities, not just distribute or report on them, the question is whether to build the issuance and regulatory stack internally or license a white-label platform that already runs it. ONINO operates that layer under eWpG and MiFID II, with Cashlink as the BaFin-supervised registry, ERC-3643 as the on-chain compliance standard, and 8+ live platforms handling more than €35M in tokenized capital. The Volksbank partnership is the institutional reference point for what this looks like at bank scale.

Evaluate ONINO for your firm's issuance stack →

Frequently asked questions

Is ONINO white-label, or closed-end like iCapital and Moonfare?

ONINO is white-label. The issuer operates the platform under its own brand and URL, with the regulatory and technical infrastructure delegated to ONINO as the operator. There is no curated fund menu, the issuer decides which instruments to launch, which deals to bring to its investor base, and which structure (Genussrecht, Nachrangdarlehen, eWpG security, tokenized share) fits the use case.

iCapital and Moonfare are closer to closed-end / managed feeder marketplaces: the platform owns the inventory (or the feeder funds into the inventory), and the wealth manager or investor selects from the curated menu. iCapital does offer some white-label and embedded integrations, but the core economic model is platform-as-distributor, not platform-as-issuer-infrastructure.

EU vs. US footprint, which platform covers DACH best?

ONINO is DACH-native, regulated primarily under German and EU law (eWpG, MiFID II, MiCAR, AIFMD, ECSPR), supporting financing structures in 24+ countries. The instrument coverage maps directly to German private-finance instruments (Genussrecht, Nachrangdarlehen, partiarisches Darlehen, eWpG digital securities).

Moonfare is European-native, headquartered in Berlin, with Luxembourg feeder structures under CSSF; strong DACH presence.

iCapital is US-anchored, with EU expansion via regulated entities in Portugal (CMVM) and the UK (FCA), EMEA leadership based in Zurich, and a European Marketplace launch. The footprint is growing but US-led.

Addepar is US-dominant, with UK and APAC expansion. DACH presence is comparatively limited.

For a DACH-specific issuance use case, particularly involving Genussrechte, Nachrangdarlehen, or eWpG digital securities, ONINO is the only one of the four built for the instrument set from day one.

Does the platform support tokenization?

ONINO supports native tokenization on a regulated EU rail, using ERC-3643 (T-REX) as the on-chain compliance standard and ONCHAINID for identity contracts, with Cashlink operating as the BaFin-supervised crypto-securities registry (eWpG-Kryptowertpapierregister) where the eWpG framework applies. Tokenization is an optional layer, the platform also supports non-tokenized digital securities under the same regulatory architecture.

iCapital uses DLT (distributed ledger technology) for internal record-keeping and has built a "reusable investor identity" / Investor Passport, but does not issue on-chain regulated digital securities.

Moonfare has no tokenization layer. The product is a Luxembourg feeder-fund structure with a digital front-end.

Addepar has no tokenization layer. It can ingest and report on tokenized positions held elsewhere if data is fed in, but does not issue or transact.

How do custodian, registry, and reporting integrations compare?

ONINO integrates with Cashlink (eWpG registry operator), KYC/AML providers (BaFin-compliant onboarding), fund admin connectors, banking rails for funding flows, and exposes API surface for downstream reporting integration into systems like Addepar.

iCapital has the broadest integration network among the four, 75+ custodian, fund-admin, transfer-agent, UMA, and RIA-platform integrations, including direct workflows into Envestnet UMAs and SSO into advisor workstations.

Moonfare integrates with its bank partners' onboarding and reporting flows for white-label distribution (e.g., Berenberg), plus Luxembourg fund administrators and depositary structures.

Addepar has the deepest reporting-side integration set: connectors into custodians, prime brokers, fund administrators, and alternative-investment document feeds, with a flexible position/transaction data model designed for multi-entity, multi-currency, multi-asset views.

The cleanest integration architecture for an MFO running all three layers: ONINO as the issuance and investor-operations system, iCapital or Moonfare as the distribution feed for institutional third-party alts, Addepar as the reporting consolidation layer downstream.

How are these platforms priced?

ONINO prices as a white-label SaaS / per-deal model, setup fee plus ongoing operating fee paid by the issuer. The economics scale with the platform's deal volume and AUM under issuance, not with each end-investor's allocation. No prospectus-equivalent fee load is passed to the end investor.

iCapital monetizes through platform fees, service fees, and technology licensing, paid by a mix of asset managers (for placement) and wealth firms (for platform access and integration). Pricing varies by relationship type.

Moonfare charges the end investor: roughly 0.5–1% management fee per annum on invested capital, plus a setup fee of up to 1%, on top of the underlying GP fees of the target funds.

Addepar prices as an enterprise SaaS with per-asset and tiered models, generally scaling with assets administered and the complexity of the data model. Typical buyers are RIA / MFO firms above ~$500M AUM.

The structural read: ONINO's pricing puts the cost on the issuer (and therefore the structuring economics of the deal); Moonfare's puts it on the investor; iCapital's sits across both sides; Addepar's sits on the wealth firm. That difference materially changes the unit economics of any deal that uses each.