Build, Buy, or Bespoke. A scored decision tool for private credit, real estate credit, and real asset funds evaluating AI and data tooling.
The wrong posture costs a fund partner-time and capital it cannot get back. This diagnostic maps the right one for each of your workflows.
What counts as a workflow
A workflow is a repeatable, end-to-end task that today consumes a meaningful share of senior time. It has a trigger, a defined output, and an identifiable owner inside the fund.
- W1 Deal screening Sets the top of the funnel. Senior origination time lost here compounds across the fund.
- W2 Credit memo and IC pack The document on which capital is committed. Structure is standard, inputs are bespoke.
- W3 Portfolio monitoring Where losses are prevented or missed. Multi-asset, multi-jurisdiction, no vendor depth.
- W4 LP reporting A commodity output to a non-commodity audience. Errors cost institutional trust.
- W5 Regulatory and compliance reporting Filing deadlines are fixed. The data pipeline that feeds them is not.
What you are actually choosing between
Most funds reduce this to build or buy and land on the wrong answer for at least one workflow. The third path below, sitting between the two, is often the one that fits for mid-market private credit and CRE credit. Described on their own terms, not ranked.
Six originators at EUR 800/day fully loaded. Two hours per teaser on manual screening. Roughly 300 teasers a year at mid-market volume. That is ~EUR 180K of senior origination time absorbed by first-look screening alone — before counting deals missed or mispriced from screening fatigue.
Portfolio monitoring adds a comparable amount when covenant checks and rent coverage reads are still stitched from spreadsheets. Any of the three paths must clear that bar, not a zero bar.
Matching the path to the problem
- The workflow is a commodity. LP portals, fund accounting, KYC, e-signature.
- A dominant vendor has product-market fit for your asset class at your scale.
- Your process is standard enough that adapting to the tool is cheap.
- Switching cost is acceptable if the vendor stalls or gets acquired.
- The capability is a structural edge, not a utility. It belongs on the fund's balance sheet.
- You already run a technology function at scale and can absorb another team.
- Data sensitivity or regulatory posture rules out third-party code paths.
- You need the capability to evolve continuously — a permanent in-house team iterating every quarter, not a defined build with handover.
- Your deals are idiosyncratic. Collateral types, structures, or jurisdictions differ across the book.
- No off-the-shelf vendor covers your asset class with real depth.
- You want full IP ownership — same rights as an in-house build — without standing up a permanent engineering team.
- You want to run the system for years: the code is yours, and future changes are optional capacity engagements, not headcount.
Why the generic framework underfits your asset class
Five factors that shape every posture call in private credit and CRE credit. Weighted differently by fund, felt by all.
Six questions, one score, one default posture
Answer each question for the workflow in front of you. Each click maps to Buy, Build, or Bespoke. The posture that gathers the most signal wins. Run it per workflow — the posture that wins for LP reporting will lose for deal screening.
Take the assessment
Six questions. One default posture per workflow, with the reasoning behind it. Three minutes. No email required to see your result.
Want this in your inbox? Enter your email. We will send your posture + the reasoning behind it, saved so Sam can pick up the thread if you want to compare notes.
One fund, five decisions
Five decisions, not one. The posture that wins for LP reporting will lose for deal screening. Defaults below are tuned for mid-market private credit or CRE credit at roughly EUR 1 to 5 billion AUM. Priors, not conclusions.
| Workflow | Default posture | Why |
|---|---|---|
| LP reporting | Buy | Commodity workflow, multiple credible vendors, regulated output. The differentiation is your returns, not your NAV template. |
| Regulatory and compliance reporting | Buy + Bespoke integration | Vendor handles filing and format. Bespoke handles the data pipeline that feeds it from your deal stack. AIFMD II deadlines do not wait. |
| Credit memo and IC pack | Hybrid: Buy templates, Bespoke extraction | Memo structure is standard. Extracting terms from bespoke deal docs across five jurisdictions and four languages is not. |
| Deal screening | Bespoke | Idiosyncratic deals, no vendor fit, highest partner-time drag. First-look triage is where senior hours leak. |
| Portfolio monitoring | Bespoke | Multi-asset collateral, multi-jurisdiction, covenant and rent coverage complexity. No vendor covers asset-based lending or CRE credit end-to-end. |
What to put in the contract
These are the default clauses in a Prospekto engagement. The fund owns the code, runs the system, and has a written exit from day one. Five line items. None unusual in institutional contracting. Listed so partners can confirm parity with an in-house build before signing.
- IP assignment. All code, models, and configuration assigned to the fund at delivery, not licensed. No residual rights sitting with the builder.
- Source-code escrow or direct handover. Fund holds the repository. Builder retains no kill-switch, no hosted dependency, no runtime lock.
- Knowledge-transfer milestones. Defined training deliverables and documentation, tied to payment tranches. If the handover is unfinished, the final tranche is unpaid.
- Defined exit. The engagement has a stated end date and a stated end state. Handover, not dependency. Extension is optional, not structural.
- No-reliance clause. Fund can operate the system without the builder from day one of handover. Written into the contract, demonstrated in the UAT.
Bespoke lands for one of your workflows?
The next conversation is a scoping call. Fixed fee, fixed timeline, handover written into the contract. Bring the posture you scored.