Finance departments must now build more reliable budgets, update their forecasts more regularly and explain the variances between expected and actual results. In many companies, these activities still rely on Excel files, fragmented systems and manual exchanges between departments. EPM solutions seek to address these challenges by connecting data, financial models and decision-making processes. Board and Pigment are among the platforms that address these needs. But what are their differences, which features should be compared and how can an organisation determine which one best meets its needs? This comparison examines their main characteristics to help finance departments make an informed choice.
Board and Pigment: Two Views of Enterprise Planning
Board is now positioned as an enterprise planning platform that combines data, financial and operational models and artificial intelligence in a common environment. Its offering notably covers financial planning, supply chain planning, workforce management, forecasting and financial consolidation. The publisher highlights a continuous planning approach, in which companies can update their assumptions, simulate developments and bring financial decisions closer to operational constraints.
Pigment positions itself as an integrated planning platform for finance and operational teams. It is based on a dynamic modelling engine, centralised data management and collaborative features for building budgets, updating forecasts and analysing multiple scenarios. Its Graphite architecture, presented by the publisher in 2026, places particular emphasis on model flexibility, data management and the ability to evolve plans without rebuilding their entire structure. Pigment is also developing financial consolidation and artificial intelligence features.
Both platforms therefore seek to bring planning, analysis and decision-making closer together. The difference is not simply an opposition between a traditional tool and a modern one. It must be found in how each solution addresses the company’s processes, the complexity of its models, its control requirements and its organisation.
Board and Pigment Comparison: The Main Differences
The following table summarises the documented positioning of the two publishers. It is not a ranking: the available features, their depth and their conditions of use must be verified according to the scope of the project.
| Criterion | Board | Pigment |
|---|---|---|
| Positioning | Financial and operational enterprise planning | Integrated planning and collaborative modelling |
| Budget and forecasting | Financial planning, forecasting and scenario analysis | Budgeting, forecasting and dynamic scenarios |
| Modelling | Multidimensional engine and planning models | Dynamic modelling and evolving structures |
| Operational planning | Coverage of the supply chain, commercial activities and workforce | Coverage of sales, workforce, demand and other business processes |
| Financial consolidation | Dedicated financial consolidation and reporting offering | Consolidation offering integrated into financial planning |
| Artificial intelligence | Analytical and generative AI, and agents dedicated to planning and financial processes | Agents for analysis, modelling and consolidation assistance |
| Data and integrations | Connections to ERP, CRM and enterprise data platforms | Connectors, APIs and scheduled exchanges with enterprise systems |
| Total cost | To be determined according to licences, scope and integration | To be determined according to licences, scope and integration |
Sources: official documentation from Board and Pigment. The positioning presented does not mean that the features are exclusive to one publisher. The contractual scope and availability level of each feature must be confirmed.
Budgeting and Forecasting: How Do the Two Platforms Address Finance Needs?
Budget preparation is often the starting point for an EPM project. The challenge is to bring together actual data, management assumptions and contributions from the various departments in order to produce a consistent budget. Teams must then be able to update their forecasts and quickly understand variances.
Board makes it possible to connect financial processes with operational activities within a single planning approach. This positioning can be particularly relevant when a change in demand, production volumes or capacity needs to be reflected in financial targets.
Pigment focuses on building shared models and evolving assumptions across the company’s different dimensions. This approach can be useful when a finance department needs to adjust its forecasts frequently, test multiple scenarios and share their consequences with sales, human resources or operations teams.
Take an example: a company expects an 8% decline in revenue. It wants to measure the impact on its margin, expenditure, cash flow and workforce. Both platforms should be assessed on their ability to represent these relationships, update the results and allow managers to examine the scenarios.
The real question is therefore not which one can produce a budget, but which one makes it possible to build and maintain the model suited to the business, with an acceptable level of maintenance. This will depend as much on the model design as on the platform’s capabilities.
Modelling and Scenarios: Is Flexibility Enough?
Modelling is a central criterion when choosing an EPM solution. It determines how data is structured, how assumptions are linked and how changes propagate through calculations.
Pigment explicitly highlights its dynamic modelling: teams can evolve structures, modify assumptions and examine their effects on connected models. The publisher presents this capability as a way to adapt plans to business changes without having to rebuild their architecture with every change.
Board also relies on a multidimensional engine designed to manage complex models and connect financial and operational plans. Its platform aims to bring assumptions, scenarios and decisions together within a common environment.
To distinguish between the two solutions, it is necessary to go beyond these descriptions. A comparative demonstration should cover the creation of a new analytical dimension, the addition of an entity, the modification of a hierarchy, the propagation of changes and the consequences for model performance.
Flexibility must also be assessed over time. A solution that enables an initial model to be created quickly is not necessarily the one that will be easiest to maintain after several years of process changes.
Financial Consolidation: An Area to Examine Separately
Financial consolidation deserves particular attention because it addresses requirements that differ from those of budgeting or management reporting. It must notably make it possible to combine the accounts of several entities, manage currencies, process intercompany transactions and produce controllable and auditable financial statements.
Board has an offering dedicated to consolidation and financial reporting, now known as Financial Close, Consolidation, and Reporting (FCCR). It notably covers close processes, intercompany eliminations, currency conversions, adjustments and the traceability of transactions.
Pigment has also strengthened its offering in this area. In April 2026, the publisher announced the launch of its Consolidation Agent, as well as new components of its Multi-GAAP Starter Kit offering. Its proposition aims to bring statutory consolidation, actual data and financial planning closer together.
These developments show that both publishers are seeking to bring consolidation and planning closer together. However, they are not sufficient to establish full functional equivalence.
A company wishing to replace an existing consolidation tool will notably need to examine the management of changes in scope, ownership rules, applicable accounting standards, consolidation entries, close workflows, controls and audit trails. It will also need to verify support for its local requirements and the ability to reproduce its financial statements.
Point to watch: consolidation capabilities must be subject to a specific assessment. The presence of this feature in an EPM platform does not guarantee that it will meet all the group’s accounting and regulatory requirements.
Artificial Intelligence: Assessing Use Cases Beyond the Announcements
Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role in both offerings. Board presents agents capable of assisting planning and consolidation processes, while Pigment is developing agents dedicated in particular to modelling, analysis and financial consolidation.
At Board, the Controller Agent is presented as an assistant for finance teams, notably tasked with identifying inconsistencies, facilitating reconciliations and helping to identify issues likely to delay the close. At Pigment, the Consolidation Agent is notably intended to detect and explain control or reconciliation issues in the consolidation process.
For a finance department, these features may offer real value if they reduce manual checks, accelerate variance analysis and facilitate the identification of anomalies. However, their value depends on data quality, business rules, access rights and users’ ability to control the results.
A serious assessment must distinguish between available features, those offered in beta and those that still appear only in announcements or roadmaps. It must also verify the arrangements for human oversight, action traceability and the limitations of automation.
AI should therefore not become an isolated selection criterion. It should be assessed according to the tasks it can genuinely improve and the safeguards required for its use in a financial environment.
Data Integration and Governance: A Decisive Issue
An EPM platform does not operate independently of the information system. It must rely on reliable data from ERP systems, sales tools, human resources systems and the company’s data platforms in particular.
Board states that it can connect to ERP and CRM systems as well as enterprise data platforms, including Snowflake, Databricks and Microsoft Fabric. The solution presents itself as a planning and decision-making layer that complements existing data systems.
Pigment highlights its connectors, APIs and governed data layer, which aims to share consistent definitions and information across models and teams. The platform also offers access controls and data governance mechanisms.
In both cases, the existence of a stated integration does not guarantee that it will meet all the company’s needs. The systems actually supported, compatible versions, exchange frequency, data write-back arrangements and error handling must be verified.
Security requirements must also be examined: access rights management, segregation of duties, traceability, hosting, data protection and compliance with internal policies.
Implementation, Adoption and Total Cost: Do Not Limit the Assessment to the Licence Price
The cost of an EPM project is not limited to the software subscription. It also includes scoping, model design, data integration, implementation services, training, maintenance and subsequent changes.
Board highlights the possibility of starting with a targeted scope and then progressively extending planning to other processes. Pigment emphasises the flexibility of its models and the autonomy of business users. These positions may facilitate certain projects, but they do not in themselves make it possible to conclude that one solution will systematically be faster or less expensive to deploy.
Timing depends in particular on the number of entities, the complexity of the business rules, the number of interfaces, data quality and the availability of internal teams. The ability to evolve models without multiplying bespoke developments must also be taken into account.
To compare Board and Pigment fairly, the company should request proposals covering the same scope and calculate the total cost over several years. The proposals should specify licences, modules, users, integration services, training and change conditions.
Prices must not be estimated using unverified figures or projects with a different scope. Without comparable quotations, it is not possible to objectively declare one solution less expensive than the other.
Board or Pigment: Which Solution Based on the Company’s Priorities?
The choice depends above all on the processes the organisation wishes to improve.
Board deserves particular consideration when the project involves bringing financial planning, operational processes and consolidation together on a common platform. The companies concerned will notably need to verify the depth of the required features and their suitability for their management requirements.
Pigment deserves particular consideration when the project focuses on dynamic modelling, the regular evolution of assumptions and collaboration between several functions around shared plans. It will be necessary to verify that its coverage also meets the organisation’s control, governance and consolidation needs.
These positions are not mutually exclusive: both platforms offer financial and operational planning capabilities, as well as artificial intelligence features. They are starting points for organising a shortlist, not a definitive recommendation.
For an SME wishing to make its budget more reliable, the priority criteria may be ease of use, model maintenance time and total cost. For an international group, consolidation, controls, entity management, data volumes and regulatory requirements may carry more weight. An industrial company may, for its part, attach particular importance to the link between financial forecasts and demand or capacity planning.
Company size is therefore not sufficient to determine the appropriate solution. Process complexity, available resources and project objectives must also be taken into account.
How Can an Organisation Arrange a Truly Objective Comparison?
Before making a choice, the finance department should prepare an evaluation grid common to both publishers. Each solution must be assessed against the same needs, using the same data and scenarios.
A useful approach is to test at least three situations: building a budget with several contributors, simulating a major change in activity and producing consolidated reporting if this is a requirement. It is also important to test model changes, result traceability and access rights management.
The criteria should be weighted according to the company’s priorities. An organisation that primarily needs financial planning will not necessarily assign the same importance to consolidation as a group seeking to replace its close tool.
Demonstrations should ultimately make it possible to assess team autonomy, dependencies on the integrator and maintenance conditions. This method provides a more reliable basis than a general ranking or a comparison based solely on publishers’ messaging.
Conclusion: The Best Solution Is the One That Meets the Actual Need
Board and Pigment illustrate the EPM market’s evolution towards platforms that bring financial planning, operations, data analysis and artificial intelligence closer together. Their offerings share important similarities, but also have positioning and characteristics that should be examined based on each company’s processes.
Board can be considered for its integrated coverage of financial and operational planning, as well as its dedicated consolidation offering. Pigment can be considered for its approach to dynamic modelling, collaboration and the evolution of plans. In both cases, the final choice should be based on functional, technical and economic checks.
For finance departments, the challenge is not to select the platform that promises the most, but the one that addresses the company’s priorities, integrates with its environment and can be sustainably adopted by its teams. A relevant Board and Pigment comparison should therefore lead to a contextualised decision based on measurable criteria rather than a universal ranking.