Advice firms turning to third-parties to bridge data delivery gaps

Granular transaction data, firm-level management information, and consistent formatting continue to be the most prominent gaps in platforms’ and pension providers’ data delivery, according to a report from NextWealth.

These issues were the same problems that were identified in the firms’ 2025 research report.

NextWealth’s Data Openness Report 2026 noted that financial advice firms were turning to third-party aggregators to bridge the gap on the data they need.

Assessing metrics of data availability, quality, timeliness, and delivery and access, it found 61 per cent of firms were only ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the data platforms deliver on average, while for pension providers the figure was 54 per cent.

“When over half of advisers are only ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the data delivered, it speaks to the data being tolerated, not celebrated,” said NextWealth associate research director and report author, Chanelle Paynter.

“In order to change that, the answer lies in better understanding how advisers intend to use the data – the data requirements for regulatory compliance and evidence, business management and growth, client experience, operational efficiency are all very different.”

The findings highlighted that data openness was not just a supply question, with advisers asking whether data was usable, consistent, and fit for their workflows.

Firms were not waiting for platforms and pension providers to act, and were building data infrastructure and adopting aggregation services.

The largest and fastest-growing firms were found to be treating data capability as a non-negotiable in platform selection, with data provision influencing platform panel decisions, consolidation shortlists, and new business flows.

NextWealth revealed that the gap in delivering transaction data was a consistent complaint and urged platforms and pension providers to ensure they understand each differing use case, and act to design better solutions.

It added that transaction data was suffering from inconsistent labelling, formatting, and accuracy problems, undermining its usability.

“Expanding the volume of data shared is clearly still needed but on its own it is not enough,” Paynter said.

“How that data is labelled, structured and interpreted matters as much as whether it is provided at all. A transaction feed that requires weeks of manual cleaning before it can be used is not necessarily materially better than no feed at all.

“The need is pressing and its growing. Advice firms need data to do their jobs. They need it to evidence ongoing suitability to clients, to satisfy regulators, to give private equity investors the management information they require, and to build towards the technology-enabled operating models that will define the next generation of advice businesses.

“What firms are asking for is not complex. It’s broader data such as transaction data, delivered consistently, in a format they can actually use. Where platforms and providers fall short of that, firms are using aggregators to bridge the gap.”

---