Recent survey responses* from UK advisory firms show a clear pattern: reporting is a critical operational function, but the underlying processes remain labour-intensive and overly dependent on manual work. Firms continue to place strong emphasis on performance reporting, valuation summaries and fund-level insight, with almost 88% generating performance reports between dates and over two-thirds producing valuation and asset allocation reporting.
What sits behind these outputs, however, is where the pressure is felt most.
Advisory firms are still spending too much time fixing data
A significant number of respondents highlighted the effort required to reconcile information from multiple platforms and systems. Firms reported using combinations of CRMs, platforms, spreadsheets and manual collation to produce client-ready reports, with over half of respondents relying on ‘other’ tools outside mainstream systems, often spreadsheets or bespoke processes.
Free-text feedback reinforces this. Firms want less manual intervention, fewer workarounds, and more consistent data feeds. Comments such as “one size fits all software that can fit into all platforms/providers” and “more automation” were repeated themes.
From our perspective, this is exactly what we see across the market: reporting quality is constrained not by firms’ intentions, but by the data they receive. Where platform data arrives incomplete, inconsistent or in different formats, firms have little choice but to correct it manually. This slows the reporting process and makes it difficult to maintain accuracy.
Automation is now an operational requirement
The survey also shows that automation is viewed as essential rather than desirable. When asked why they use investment reporting solutions, firms rated efficiency, accuracy and automation as ‘very’ or ‘extremely important’ across the board.
This reflects the reality that advisory firms need predictable, reliable reporting processes, especially at quarterly and annual review points. Manual reporting not only increases operational cost but also carries avoidable risk. Firms also noted challenges with legacy systems and the high effort needed to prepare data before it can enter a report, further reinforcing demand for automation.
Client clarity remains central
Improving how information is presented to clients remains high on the agenda. Respondents want reporting that is simple, clear and able to demonstrate progress in a way clients can understand. Several firms stressed the need to show ‘where they started and where they are now, and the reasons why’, or requested stronger summary pages and flexible layouts.
This is consistent with what we hear in the market. Data quality underpins a firm’s ability to present a coherent client story. Poor or inconsistent data forces advisers to add caveats or explanations, which can erode confidence. Under Consumer Duty, clarity is more important than ever, and advisory firms know this.
Sprint’s perspective
The findings reinforce our view that a modern reporting experience starts with better data. Our role, through our FINIO data hub and Fastrak reporting software, is to remove the friction that still exists between investment platforms, software systems and advisory firms. When firms receive reconciled, enriched and consistent data, they can produce accurate reporting at speed and focus their time where it matters, on client conversations.
We see a clear demand for integrated reporting solutions, and the industry is now reaching a point where manual processes are no longer sustainable. Advisory firms want reliable data, efficient processes and reporting tools that reflect the standard of service they aim to deliver.
*The survey is based on 40 replies from advisory firms in the UK.
