The CFO’s Guide To Evaluating Equity Management Software

Most comparisons of equity management software evaluate platforms on cap table features like share classes, vesting schedules, and SAFE issuance. That's a reasonable starting point for a founder setting up their first cap table, but finance teams need something more. 

CFOs and controllers shortlisting equity management software are asking a specific set of questions: Does this produce ASC 718 expense calculations that auditors can follow? Does the data tie to my general ledger without a manual true-up every quarter? Does the access control model satisfy segregation-of-duties requirements?

This guide is built around those questions. It’s a framework for finance leaders evaluating end-to-end equity management software, not founders setting up their first cap table.

What finance teams really need from equity management software

Most equity management platforms were built for founders managing cap tables. That's intentional, as early-stage companies don't need close workflows or audit reporting. Instead, they need to track ownership and issue option grants.

But finance teams inherit those platforms as companies scale. Founder-first tools lack what a finance function really requires: close workflows, staying on top of compliance processes, and reporting that auditors can rely on. The result is a set of recurring workarounds in every close cycle.

If your equity management process looks like this, the platform wasn't built for your team:

• ASC 718 calculations produce a number without showing the Black-Scholes inputs or forfeiture methodology. Your team builds supporting schedules in spreadsheets to satisfy auditors.
• GL integrations export data instead of posting journal entries automatically. You have a manual reconciliation step before every close.
• Access control models use broad permission tiers. You can't implement the granular role separation that segregation of duties requires.
• Equity records live across systems. There's no single source of truth for auditors, board conversations, or close documentation.

However, equity management software built specifically for finance teams delivers:

• Real-time GL sync, where journal entries post automatically with correct account coding and period alignment.
• Granular role-based access controls that support segregation of duties.
• ASC 718 calculations with visible methodology, that allow auditors to follow the inputs and assumptions in the report.
• Reporting accurate enough to send directly to auditors or the board without additional validation.

The 5 best equity management software platforms for finance teams 

Pulley

Pulley is a cap table management and equity management platform built for founders and finance teams, covering everything from SAFE issuance and option grants through ASC 718 expense reporting, GL integrations, and audit trail management. 

For finance teams specifically, the platform is designed around the work that matters during close, such as expense calculations with visible methodology, role-based access controls, and compliance workflows that run inside the platform rather than alongside it. 

Rated 4.7/5 on G2 as of June 2026, Pulley earns consistent praise from finance users for its reporting accuracy and expert support. 

Key features for finance teams:

• ASC 718 and stock-based compensation reporting — expense calculations with the inputs and assumptions visible, so auditors can follow the methodology, not just the output. Reports are built to satisfy Rule 701 disclosure reports, Form 3921 filings, and ASC 718 expense reports without off-platform manual work.
• GL and HRIS integrations — real-time sync with accounting and HR systems, reducing manual reconciliation steps before close.
• Audit trails and role-based access controls — granular permissions that support segregation of duties, backed by SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
• Scenario modeling and dilution forecasting — model equity outcomes before a round closes, without spreadsheets or external consultants.
• Transparent, stage-based pricing — Startup at $1,200/yr, Growth at $3,500/yr, with no pricing surprises after a funding round.
• In-house 409A valuations — handled by dedicated analysts with a 100% audit pass rate. Reports include the full methodology and supporting documentation, so there's no external valuation firm to coordinate with and no gaps when investors or auditors look closely.
• Hands-on migration support — Pulley's team handles cap table setup and data migration, reviewing every record for accuracy before go-live so the equity data your finance team inherits is clean from day one.

Limitations: Pulley is designed to scale with companies from pre-seed through growth stage. For teams in active IPO preparation, some requirements at that stage may call for more specialized tooling.

Carta

Carta is the most widely deployed equity management platform in the US market, used by over 40,000 companies. For finance teams, it offers ASC 718 expense reporting, Rule 701 and Form 3921 compliance, and audit trail functionality built into the cap table. 

Carta's depth of integrations and broad feature set make it a capable option for companies that need a single all-in-one platform across the full equity lifecycle.

Key features:

• ASC 718 automated reporting with customizable parameters, available as a core feature for C-corp customers
• Audit-ready documentation package including expense reports and minimum disclosure reports
• Established investor and law firm network, which simplifies data sharing during due diligence

Limitations:

• Pricing is not publicly listed and multiple G2 and Capterra reviewers note costs can escalate significantly after funding rounds, making total cost of ownership difficult to predict
• A 2023 analysis by Redwood Valuation raised concerns about analyst experience levels on Carta's 409A reports and the absence of named analyst sign-off — relevant context for finance teams evaluating audit defensibility

Ledgy

Ledgy is an equity management platform with particular strength in international compliance. For finance teams operating across multiple jurisdictions, it supports IFRS 2, US GAAP, FRS 102, and UK GAAP financial reporting, and offers 70+ HRIS integrations to reduce manual data entry across the granting workflow.

Key features:

• IFRS 2, ASC 718, and FRS 102 financial reporting with tranche-level detail and custom reporting intervals
• 70+ HRIS integrations for automated data flow across the granting process
• ISO 27001:2022 certified, with role-based access controls and SAML SSO support

Limitations:

• 409A valuation support relies on a third-party partner rather than in-house analysts
• US-specific features are lighter than European compliance capabilities; companies whose primary reporting obligation is ASC 718 should confirm depth of US GAAP support before committing

Global Shares (J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions)

Global Shares, now operating as J.P. Morgan Workplace Solutions following its acquisition by J.P. Morgan in 2022, provides equity plan administration for private and public companies globally.

Key features:

• Financial reporting suite covering ASC 718, IFRS 2, and JGAAP with front-loaded and straight-line amortization options and out-of-period transaction management
• Audit-ready reports accessible on demand for investors, auditors, and regulators
• Full-service equity plan administration across 100+ countries, with dedicated account managers

Limitations:

• Positioned primarily for mid-to-large companies and those approaching IPO; implementation complexity and pricing reflect that scope
• Best suited to organizations with existing J.P. Morgan relationships or complex global plan structures; may be more than early-to-mid growth stage companies require

Shareworks (Morgan Stanley at Work)

Shareworks, part of Morgan Stanley at Work, is an enterprise equity management platform serving private and public companies with complex, large-scale equity programs. 

Key features:

• Customizable ASC 718 and IFRS 2 financial reporting with journal entry consolidation and single-click disclosure tables
• Scenario modeling and waterfall analysis for round and exit planning
• Global compliance database covering 170+ countries, updated by a network of law firms

Limitations:

• Enterprise pricing and implementation scope make it most appropriate for late-stage private or public companies with large, complex equity programs
• The platform's integration with Morgan Stanley's brokerage infrastructure may not suit companies with existing broker relationships that they want to preserve

Key features to look for in equity management software for finance teams 

Not all equity management platforms support the demands of a finance function. When you're evaluating options, these are the capabilities that matter most and what it costs when any of them are missing or underpowered.

ASC 718 and IFRS 2 accounting workflows: What auditability actually requires

ASC 718 and IFRS 2 govern stock-based compensation recognition. Companies calculate fair value at grant date and expense it over the vesting period. Forfeitures, modifications, and performance conditions trigger recalculations. This is continuous work.

The cost of weak support is audit findings. When a platform outputs a single expense figure without surfacing the methodology, the finance team must recreate the supporting work. That typically means building spreadsheets and walking auditors through assumptions the platform should handle automatically.

Audit trails and access controls: Segregation of duties and SOC 2 alignment

Segregation of duties is a foundational internal control. The person approving equity grants should be different from the person recording them. Access to cap table data should be limited to those who need it.

Many founder-first platforms offer broad permission tiers rather than this level of granular control. Weak access controls surface during audit walkthroughs, when the auditor asks who can edit grant records and the answer is "everyone." Auditors expect documented evidence of who approved what, when, and under what authority, without granular controls and a comprehensive audit trail, that evidence doesn't exist.

When evaluating a platform, confirm:

• What role-level controls exist, and whether they can be configured independently
• SOC 2 Type 2 certification and request the report as part of the vendor evaluation

Financial reporting and board-ready outputs: What "audit-ready" means in practice

"Audit-ready" gets used loosely. In practice, it means the report goes directly to an auditor with accurate data, documented methodology, and accessible supporting detail. No manual rebuilding by the finance team.

Weak reporting shows up at close. The expense numbers exist, but reproducing how the platform got there takes days you don't have. A report that matches the financial statement number but doesn't show the calculation isn't audit-ready. For finance teams at private growth-stage companies, the platform should produce Rule 701 disclosure reports, Form 3921 filings, and ASC 718 expense reports that auditors can follow independently.

If the platform requires an Excel rebuild before audit submission, it isn't doing the work.

GL and HRIS integrations: Real-time sync vs. manual export workflows

GL integration is a common source of friction in close cycles. Weak integration forces manual reconciliation, adding a recurring task before each close. HRIS integration matters equally. When termination data doesn't reach the equity platform automatically, forfeiture calculations run on stale data. That creates discrepancies that surface during audits or closes.

The cost of weak integrations is manual reconciliation that consumes finance bandwidth. Real-time visibility and sync eliminate the manual step. Batch exports create manual work.

When evaluating integrations, confirm:

• GL integration posts journal entries automatically with correct account coding and period alignment
• HRIS terminations flow automatically and reflect quickly in equity records

Scenario modeling and dilution forecasting: Equity planning before a round closes

For finance teams, scenario modeling is essential to understanding how proposed rounds affect ownership structures, liquidation preferences, and option pools before a term sheet is signed. Accurate cap table data is critical to quality analysis.

Platforms vary in modeling depth. Basic platforms show post-money ownership. Advanced platforms support multi-scenario forecasting, waterfall analysis, and stress-testing dilution scenarios. Weak modeling costs time in board conversations and fundraising.

Pulley's fundraising modeling tools support scenario planning with live cap table data. When evaluating platforms, confirm that the tools support:

• Multi-scenario forecasting and waterfall analysis across exit scenarios
• Stress-testing dilution implications against different term sheet scenarios
• Live cap table data, so modeling reflects current ownership
  ‍

See how Pulley handles ASC 718, GL integrations, and audit-ready reporting. Book a 30-minute walkthrough with the team.

‍

How to choose the right equity management software for your finance team 

The right platform depends on your finance function's maturity and specific reporting environment. Here are the key decision dimensions:

• Pre-audit vs. post-audit companies. Post-audit companies have clear auditor expectations. Pre-audit companies need a platform that will hold up under scrutiny. In both cases, audit-defensible output is non-negotiable.
• Multi-entity and international structures. If your equity program spans multiple legal entities or countries, IFRS 2 may apply alongside ASC 718 — confirm the platform supports your specific jurisdictions.
• High-volume grant environments. RSU programs, ESOP plans, and frequent option grants increase operational burden on the equity function, particularly around equity compliance reporting at scale.
• IPO readiness. Companies approaching an IPO need platforms that meet public-company standards: SOX-relevant access controls, SEC disclosure formats, and documentation required for registration.

Questions to ask vendors in demos:

• How are ASC 718 true-ups handled when forfeiture rates change?
• What role-level controls exist, and can they be configured independently?
• Is your SOC 2 Type 2 report available on request?
• What does a typical implementation timeline look like, including data validation?
• How does pricing scale as stakeholder count grows?

Red flags to watch for:

• Vague reporting claims with no sample output available
• No SOC 2 report available or long delays in providing it
• Implementation timelines that skip data validation
• Pricing that shifts substantially after a funding round

How to make the final call on equity management software

The criteria for finance teams are consistent: close accuracy, audit readiness, compliance depth, and GL integration. The right platform eliminates workarounds rather than reducing them. If you're running reconciliation sprints or building ASC 718 spreadsheets, the platform isn't doing its job.

Pulley is built around these capabilities: ASC 718 workflows with visible methodology, audit trails and role-based access controls for segregation of duties, GL integrations that post automatically, and compliance processes built in. The Pulley vs. Carta comparison covers pricing and key capabilities.

Book a 30-minute demo to see how it works for your team.

‍

FAQs

What's the difference between equity management software and cap table software?

Cap table software tracks ownership, while equity management software is a broader term that typically includes cap table management alongside compliance tools (ASC 718 expense reports, Rule 701 disclosure reports, 409A valuations), reporting, scenario modeling, and integrations with the accounting and HR stack. 

A tool that handles cap table tracking but lacks compliance and reporting depth isn't finance-grade equity management software.

How long does it take to implement equity management software?

Implementation timelines vary based on cap table complexity, data quality, and how much historical grant data needs to be migrated. Most platforms estimate two to six weeks for a standard migration. That range can expand if historical data requires significant cleanup or validation. 

Can equity management software integrate with our existing accounting stack?

Most established equity management platforms offer GL integrations, but the quality and depth of those integrations vary. The relevant questions are: does the integration post journal entries automatically, or does it produce an export that requires manual entry? How are period-end adjustments handled? Which GL systems are supported natively? 

For finance teams, a well-structured integration is the difference between equity management that supports the close and equity management that creates a parallel workstream.

‍

Pulley gives finance teams audit-ready ASC 718 reports, GL integrations that don't require a manual true-up, and access controls built for segregation of duties. See how it works for your team.