eMoney projects the cash flow.

Rivalta ran the same three households. Here is what each produced.

eMoney Advisor published sample reports — Sample Client plan (Washington Crossing), Paul & Lynn Price plan (Tranel Financial), Jerry & Ruth Stein Decision Center sample (Wells Fargo Advisors) Engine: Rivalta Wealth vertical — one of six Run time: 20–28 min wall clock per household

Their published sample plan, per household

eMoney / comprehensive planning platform

Plan deliverable 19–64 page projection PDF
Cash flow + Monte Carlo + longevity projections Yes (across the full plan, year by year)
Recommendation tiles surfaced 5–10 per plan
Cross-domain conflicts surfaced as first-class output Surfaced via Decision Center scenario columns; advisor narrates the divergence
Time-bound triggers (window-dated calls to action) Surfaced through advisor workflow + cash-flow projection review
Alternatives considered & explicitly rejected with reasoning Modeled via Decision Center's paired-scenario layout; advisor narrates the not-taken path

One of Rivalta's six, across all three households

Rivalta / Wealth vertical, solo

Specialist agents per run 10
Recommendations (Rattigan / Price / Stein) 13 / 12 / 13
Cross-domain conflicts (per run) 10 / 8 / 12
Time-bound triggers (per run) 1 / 3 / 6
Alternatives considered and rejected with reasons 41 / 36 / 38
Domains covered Wealth (+ 5 more available)

eMoney's three published samples cover the full sophistication range — the foundational mid-50s family plan, the retirement-only single-goal output, and the $20M-net-worth Decision Center A/B comparison. Below: a representative recommendation that fired only for that demographic in the Rivalta Wealth vertical, alongside the kind of recommendation the corresponding eMoney plan surfaces in its tile section.

Household 1

Sample Client

PA, MFJ, 52/51, $285K W-2 dual income, $688K across 401(k)/403(b)/Roth, three children (22/19/14), home + vacation home, no estate documents on record

HHI: $285,000
Retirement: $688K (3 plans)
Real estate: $1.2M (home + vacation)
Posture: Peak earning + three-child education window

eMoney plan tile (sample format)

“Increase qualified savings. Inflows vs outflows chart shows portfolio depleting at age 100/100 under base facts; saving an additional $X/year holds the curve.”

Rivalta Wealth recommendation s

Backdoor Roth IRA Contributions

Make non-deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA for each spouse and immediately convert to Roth, bypassing the direct-contribution income limits triggered at $285K household income — a low-cost, low-cash-flow-impact way to keep building tax-free retirement assets annually.

Tax agent · confidence 0.90
Comprehensive Foundational Estate Plan

Establish a Revocable Living Trust for each spouse, funded with both real estate properties and coordinated with pour-over wills, powers of attorney, and healthcare directives, including testamentary sub-trusts for the three children so the 14-year-old's share is professionally managed rather than distributed outright.

Estate agent · confidence 0.92
Tax-Loss Harvesting

Systematically sell positions in the taxable brokerage account with unrealized losses to offset realized gains elsewhere in the portfolio; up to $3,000 of net losses beyond gains offsets ordinary income annually, with any excess carried forward.

Tax agent · confidence 0.95

Household 2

Paul & Lynn Price

IL, MFJ, 67/66, fully retired, $2.1M net worth, school pension $60K + Paul SS, $1.15M 401(k), $171K inherited IRA, no estate documents on record, no LTC coverage

HHI: $182,669
Retirement: $1.32M (qualified)
Pension + SS: $82,669/yr (46% funded)
Posture: Single-goal retirement-only plan

eMoney plan tile (sample format)

“Percent funded: 170%. Retirement goal projected to be fully achieved under base assumptions; portfolio remainder $2,981,690 at Lynn age 90.”

Rivalta Wealth recommendation s

IRMAA-Capped Multi-Year Roth Conversion Ladder

Convert a portion of the traditional 401(k)/IRA balance to Roth annually beginning the year the second spouse fully retires, targeting roughly $35,000/year to fill remaining room in the 22% federal bracket while staying under the $218,000 MAGI threshold that triggers the first IRMAA surcharge tier.

Investments agent · confidence 0.92
0% LTCG Harvesting vs. Roth Conversion — Bracket-Space Competition

The Investment and Tax agents both proposed harvesting long-term gains at the 0% federal rate, but every dollar of ordinary income the Roth ladder creates shrinks that same bracket headroom, and both push MAGI toward the same IRMAA cliff. Sequence conversions first; harvest gains only in the room left over.

Synthesis agent · confidence 0.88
Comprehensive Foundational Estate Plan

Establish a revocable-living-trust-based plan — RLT, pour-over wills, durable powers of attorney, and healthcare directives with HIPAA authorizations — to avoid probate and manage incapacity; confirm real-estate holdings before finalizing trust-funding language, since none are verified in the current facts.

Estate agent · confidence 0.97

Household 3

Jerry & Ruth Stein

PA, MFJ, 69/68, retired, $20.78M net worth, three children + three grandchildren (16/14/11), $6.88M concentrated company stock, $5.24M managed funds, ILIT funded with $2M UL, beach house + primary + rental apartments

Net worth: $20.78M
Company stock: $6.88M (33% of NW)
Real estate: $5.3M (home + beach + rental)
Posture: Multi-generational transfer + concentrated-position unwind

eMoney Decision Center sample format

“Base Facts vs Trust & Gifting Strategies — paired Monte Carlo, longevity, cash flow, total taxes, tax bracket columns. Plan Changes summary tile lists the gifting moves.”

Rivalta Wealth recommendation s

Charitable Beneficiary Designation on the Traditional IRA

Designate a charity or donor-advised fund as beneficiary of some or all of the $1.42M traditional IRA — a qualified charity takes it free of income tax, where children under the SECURE Act's 10-year rule would owe ordinary income tax on the full balance. Leave Roth and taxable assets to heirs.

Estate agent · confidence 0.95
Exchange Fund Contribution for Tax-Deferred Diversification

Contribute up to $3,000,000 of the concentrated position into a Section 721 exchange fund — a tax-free contribution to a partnership in exchange for an interest in a diversified pooled portfolio. Defers, rather than eliminates, the capital-gains tax while achieving broad diversification without new trust administration.

Investments agent · confidence 0.80
Bracket-Fill Management, Not Large Roth Conversions (2026–2029)

With income already above the first IRMAA tier, use modest bracket-fill withdrawals or small conversions only where they stay below the next material bracket and the next IRMAA breakpoint — softening future RMD friction without triggering 32% exposure, a higher surcharge two years later, or added taxation of Social Security.

Retirement Income agent · confidence 0.88

Cross-domain conflicts the engine surfaced.

A planning platform shows the user the projections the user wants to see (the percent-funded bar moves, the longevity curve holds). Decision Center adds a second column: Base Facts versus an advisor-defined Strategy scenario, comparing both. A reasoning engine adds something different — conflicts surfaced as first-class output, including the ones where two of the engine's own specialist agents recommend the same strategy at different sizes, and the engine flags the disagreement. Rivalta surfaced 8–12 cross-domain interactions per household; eMoney renders trade-offs through the Decision Center paired-scenario layout and the advisor's narration of the differences.

Liquidity vortex · Rattigan

Cumulative first-year draw against the $286,506 liquid pool is far larger than any single strategy assumed: catch-up contributions ($65,000), backdoor Roth funding ($34,000), Roth-conversion tax payments, ILIT Crummey gifts, a new hybrid-LTC premium, disability and term premiums, and 529 funding can plausibly consume 40–60% of the entire reserve in year one. No single recommendation models the full stack. Resolution: build one consolidated annual cash-flow budget, funding guaranteed tax-advantaged moves first and treating LTC and 529 as discretionary residuals.
Multi-agent RLT duplication · Rattigan

Three separate agents each recommend a revocable living trust with overlapping, inconsistent funding instructions — Estate funds it with both real-estate properties, Entity funds it with the primary residence plus an LLC interest plus liquid investments, and Retirement Income directs a separate wills/beneficiary review. Uncoordinated execution risks conflicting deed re-titling and beneficiary designations that lose see-through status on the $688,776 in retirement accounts. Resolution: one estate attorney drafts a single integrated document set reconciling all three funding schedules.
Roth conversion → IRMAA tier · Price + Stein

Crossing the $218K MFJ MAGI ceiling by $1 adds $974/year in Medicare surcharges, with a two-year lookback. For Price, the Roth ladder, capital-gains harvesting, and a mandatory Inherited-IRA RMD all draw on the same razor-thin headroom below the tier. For Stein, household income already sits above the first tier, so even modest bracket-fill withdrawals must be sized against the next breakpoint. Resolution: compute discretionary MAGI room after mandatory income first, then allocate it in strict priority order.
Widow's penalty amplification · All three

Loss of one Social Security check plus the shift to single brackets compresses the surviving-spouse plan in all three households. The stress point differs by household — an under-funded retirement balance for Price, a $6.88M concentrated position for Stein, no estate documents on record for Rattigan — but all three must be solved against the surviving-spouse scenario, not the joint-life one, with conversions accelerated while both spouses are alive.
Real-estate assumption gating · Price

Known liquid assets ($776,950) plus retirement assets ($1,324,570) sum to exactly the stated $2,101,520 net worth — meaning no real estate value is implied by the balance sheet, and none may be assumed. Yet the foundational estate plan, the entity/homestead work, and the Illinois homestead exemption are all built on possible real property. Resolution: treat a real-estate holdings inventory as a gating prerequisite before finalizing any trust-funding language or homestead filing.
Single-asset multi-claim · Stein

The $2.1M rental apartment building is simultaneously the subject of four mutually exclusive treatments: a Section 1031 exchange held until death, an entity/trust transfer (SLAT/IDGT/Series-LLC/SDIRA/FLP), the 'gift-now vs. step-up' analysis naming it as the transfer candidate, and a cost-segregation study that assumes continued ownership. A 1031 hold-until-death is incompatible with gifting it into a trust; cost-seg benefits are largely wasted if the property is exchanged. Resolution: resolve the retain-vs-dispose decision first, then gate every downstream treatment on that single outcome.
FLP/LLC seasoning vs gifting timing · Rattigan + Stein

Family LLCs and FLPs must be seasoned 6–12 months between formation and the first gift of interests. Contemporaneous formation and gifting invites IRC §2036 inclusion. The engine surfaces this as an ordering constraint rather than as a recommendation, because it determines whether the gifting move is defensible in both households.
Total-transfer over-commitment · Stein

Summing the value transferred across every recommendation — the rental 1031, the exchange fund, entity/trust funding, the concentrated-stock vehicle, the ILIT, the gift-for-basis segmentation, the CRUT, the IRA-to-charity designation, 529/annual-exclusion gifting, and bracket-fill — totals roughly $24M against an authoritative net worth of $20,781,292, even before the plan also directs retaining $3.2M of residences for basis step-up. No pairwise check catches this because each recommendation is individually plausible. Resolution: build a single asset-source ledger, assign each asset block to exactly one strategy, and never sum savings figures across vehicles drawing on the same dollars.

Time-bound triggers.

Calendar windows in which a decision must be made or expires. Rivalta surfaces these as first-class output; eMoney renders age-based timing through cash-flow projection columns and the advisor's workflow review, so window-bound underwriting and lookback decisions live in the advisor's review process rather than the report itself.

LTC underwriting window · Rattigan

Optimal LTC underwriting window closes by age 60; decline rates rise dramatically and premiums step sharply past it. At 51, the spouse sits just below the window and should apply now rather than wait.
Social Security FRA · Price

Client is at/near full retirement age (67). Delayed retirement credits (8%/year) remain available through age 70. The claim-now-vs-delay decision interlocks with the Roth conversion calendar and the survivor-benefit math.
MAPT 5-year lookback · Price

A Medicaid Asset Protection Trust must clear a 5-year lookback. If care is needed by 75, the trust must be funded by 70 at the latest — a calendar-bound decision, not an income-bound one.
Low Section 7520 rate window · Stein

The current §7520 rate is favorable for GRATs and CLATs — the actuarial backbone of every multi-generational structure under consideration. Lower rates lower the hurdle for the remainder transfer, so the formation month materially affects the wealth transferred.
Unused gifting capacity · Stein

Client has used $0 of lifetime gift/GST exemption; full capacity remains available (permanent under OBBBA, though appreciation continues to accumulate against it). Beginning a gifting program via SLAT, IDGT, or direct trust gifts now captures today's exemption before further growth.
QCD eligibility · Stein

Qualified Charitable Distributions become available at age 70.5, excluding up to $111K (2026) of IRA distributions from MAGI by routing them directly to charity. Jerry (69) is approaching the window; planning the philanthropy posture now sets the IRMAA optimization for years 70+.

What the engine ruled out.

Across the three households, the Wealth vertical considered and explicitly rejected 115 alternative strategies with reasoning attached — including ordering-constraint rejections like “execute annual-exclusion gifting and SLAT funding before Family LLC formation” (rejected because the entity must be formed and seasoned 6–12 months before it can receive a gift of interests). The engine catches reverse-ordering errors as well as profile-fit failures. eMoney's Decision Center renders the recommended scenario beside one advisor-defined alternative scenario, and the advisor narrates the not-taken paths.

Execute annual-exclusion gifting and SLAT funding before Family LLC formation — Rattigan rejected: entity must be formed and seasoned 6–12 months before gifting interests; reverse-ordering rejection that protects against §2036 inclusion
Execute annual-exclusion gifting, SLAT, and IDGT installment sale before FLP restructuring — Stein rejected: independent appraisal must precede any discounted transfer; reverse-ordering rejection
Execute beneficiary designation updates before the Roth conversion ladder — Price rejected: beneficiary designations should be updated after Roth conversions shift account ratios, not before; reverse-ordering rejection
Execute RMD optimization before the Roth conversion ladder — Stein rejected: Roth conversions should be completed before RMDs begin at age 73; reverse-ordering rejection at the calendar level
Immediate surrender of the $250,000 whole life policy to redeploy its $35,500 cash value into the taxable portfolio — Rattigan rejected: surrender forfeits a death benefit that functions as PA-inheritance-tax-free estate liquidity; the 4.5% PA inheritance tax makes the tax-free proceeds a more efficient transfer vehicle than after-tax portfolio growth
Family LLC or FLP wrapper around the Poconos vacation home for valuation-discount transfer planning — Rattigan rejected: the home is personal-use, not business-use, so a discount-generating entity is highly vulnerable to IRC §2036 challenge; net worth is well below the federal exemption, so there is no estate-tax driver to justify the complexity
Solo 401(k) or Cash Balance Defined Benefit Plan sponsored through a self-employment entity — Rattigan rejected: verified income is two W-2 sources totaling $285,000 with no indication of self-employment or a sponsoring business; without a trade or business, there is no legal vehicle to establish the plan
Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust to hold a life insurance policy outside the taxable estate — Price rejected: combined net worth of $2,101,520 is far below both the federal and Illinois ($4M) estate-tax exemptions, so there is no estate-tax liquidity problem for an ILIT to solve
Name the revocable living trust as direct beneficiary of the $1,324,570 in retirement accounts via a conduit trust — Price rejected: no minor, special-needs, or spendthrift beneficiary is identified to justify trust interposition, and improper see-through drafting risks collapsing the SECURE Act's 10-year deferral into accelerated taxation
Business succession planning with a buy-sell agreement funded by life insurance — Price rejected: no verified client fact indicates ownership of an operating business or partnership interest; the plan's assets are fully accounted for by liquid investments and retirement accounts
Self-Directed IRA holding the existing rental apartment building — Stein rejected: transferring an already-owned rental into an SDIRA is a prohibited transaction that would disqualify the IRA, and it forfeits the death-basis step-up the plan is otherwise built to preserve
QSBS stacking via a new family-office entity issuing stock to trusts for the grandchildren — Stein rejected: the authoritative facts list only three children (ages 44, 41, 39) and six unspecified beneficiaries — grandchildren and their ages are unconfirmed and cannot be assumed; a newly formed fee-based entity is also unlikely to satisfy §1202's active-trade-or-business test

+ 103 additional alternatives in the full result blobs across the three households, each with reasoning. Reverse-ordering rejections like the four above are a distinct rejection class — the engine catches them because every strategy is sequenced as well as sized.

Wealth was one of six.

Everything above came from Wealth alone. Each of these households sits inside the addressable surface of five other specialist verticals we deploy. Each is built the same way Wealth is: a panel of specialist agents, intra-domain synthesis, documented rejected alternatives, and a result that lands as a coherent plan.

Wealth 10 agents · the one you saw

Everything on this page. Thirteen, twelve, and thirteen recommendations across the three households. Conflicts caught, triggers surfaced, alternatives reasoned through, ordering errors prevented.

Tax Strategy 8 agents · production

Would deepen Rattigan's Roth conversion ladder against PA-conformity rules + the IRMAA tier-1 ceiling, model Price's coordinated Medicare-Part-A backdate vs HSA contribution timing, and run Stein's full §1250 depreciation recapture model on the rental apartment building.

Estate & Trust 8 agents · production

Would build Price's foundational document package as a sequenced multi-month engagement, design Stein's Dynasty Trust + GRAT + IDGT ordering with the §7520-rate-window timing, and structure Rattigan's minors'-subtrust for the 14-year-old child against the 22/19-year-old siblings' adult-distribution paths.

Insurance 8 agents · production

Would size Price's hybrid LTC product at the actuarially-optimal closing window for ages 67/66, audit Rattigan's whole-life policy ($4.2K/yr premium for $35.5K cash value), and review Stein's ILIT premium funding ($25K/yr) against the Crummey-notice annual requirement to the three children/in-laws.

Business & Real Estate 9 agents · production

Would own Stein's rental apartment building's §1031 vs sale-at-death decision tree with full depreciation recapture modeling, run the cost-segregation engineering study with bonus-depreciation timing, and assess Rattigan's vacation mountain home as a Section 121 candidate vs an investment-conversion candidate.

Trade 7 agents · production

Fires when a household has active trading or a single-stock concentration of material size. Stein's $6.88M company stock position (99% equity, $5.4M unrealized) sits inside Trade's surface for diversification sequencing, bias-aware unwind planning, and option-collar / exchange-fund coordination. Rattigan and Price hold diversified or accumulating portfolios outside Trade's firing pattern.

Then there is Concord.

When more than one vertical runs on the same household, their recommendations interact. A Tax-optimal strategy competes for cash with an Insurance-optimal one. An Estate-optimal sequence competes for timing with a Wealth-optimal one. Concord is the cross-vertical reconciliation layer that resolves these. It is patent-pending, and it is one of the eleven claims that describe the architecture.

The numbers in the scoreboard above reflect what the Wealth vertical alone surfaced on this household. Concord runs across the full financial cluster — Wealth, Tax, Estate, Insurance, Business & Real Estate. The reconciled plan is what reaches the client.

Read how Concord works

Not a price comparison. A category comparison.

eMoney is a good comprehensive planning platform and they price it as one. Rivalta is a multi-domain reasoning engine and we price it as one. The buyer who treats these as competing options at different price points is making a category error.

eMoney Pro

~$625 /seat/month

Job-to-be-done

Drive a comprehensive financial planning workflow from data aggregation through cash-flow projection to a client-ready PDF. Run Monte Carlo longevity, present balance sheets and asset allocation, model goal-funding, and (in Decision Center) compare an advisor-defined alternate scenario column-by-column against Base Facts.

Output shape

A 19–64 page client plan PDF with cash-flow projections, Monte Carlo bars, balance sheet, asset allocation, risk-management summaries, retirement and estate analyses. Decision Center adds a paired-column layout for one advisor-defined Strategy scenario.

Domain

Comprehensive financial planning platform.

Rivalta

$999/seat/month

Pro tier — see Firm tier

Job-to-be-done

Take the household's full financial life as input. Run six specialist verticals on it. Reconcile the conflicts that arise when the domains interact. Hand the professional a single coherent plan with reasoning, rejected alternatives, and the time-bound windows that drive it.

Output shape

A live Dossier with demographic-adaptive recommendations, conflict cards, rejected-alternative reasoning, sequenced execution plan, and a Concord pass that turns cross-vertical interactions into professional-decidable choices.

Domains

Wealth + Tax + Estate & Trust + Insurance + Trade + Business & Real Estate.

~1.6× the unit price. Six domains, not one. A reasoning system, not a planning platform. A different shelf in the store.

So what did this page show?

That on three published eMoney sample plans — including a Decision Center A/B comparison on a $20M-net-worth household, the most sophisticated single-domain tool comparison in this competitive set — one of our six verticals, running for twenty to twenty-eight minutes per household, produced different recommendations for different demographics, considered one hundred fifteen alternatives across the three runs (including reverse-ordering rejections), and surfaced thirty cross-domain interactions and ten time-bound triggers. eMoney publishes a comprehensive planning platform; the two artifacts are different categories of output.

That was one sixth of the platform. The other five verticals deploy on the same household. Concord reconciles them into one plan. eMoney is a comprehensive financial planning platform; Rivalta is a multi-domain reasoning system. They do not do the same job.

1 of 6 verticals shown
38 recommendations across 3 households
30 cross-domain conflicts
10 calendar triggers
115 alternatives considered

If you are picking between eMoney at ~$625 and Rivalta at $999, you are picking between a comprehensive planning platform and a multi-domain reasoning system. They do not do the same job. The price tells you that.

See Sample Dossier

Sources. eMoney Advisor published sample reports — three household plan PDFs distributed as marketing material (Sample Client comprehensive plan via Washington Crossing Financial Group; Paul & Lynn Price retirement-only plan via Tranel Financial Group; Jerry & Ruth Stein Decision Center sample via Wells Fargo Advisors). Rivalta output produced 2026-05-12 by the Wealth vertical against three independent household profiles reverse-engineered from each eMoney sample's narrative facts. Re-issued 2026-07-12: all Rivalta figures re-produced by a fresh Wealth-vertical run on the same household inputs; the original run date and figures are superseded by this dated re-issue.

Numbers. Recommendation count, rejected-alternative count, conflict count, and trigger count read directly from the result blobs produced by the Rivalta Wealth vertical for each household. eMoney pricing references publicly-cited list prices for the Pro tier (~$625/month per advisor); actual pricing varies by enterprise contract.

Disclosure. This is comparative-advertising material. Rivalta is not affiliated with eMoney Advisor. The numbers shown represent one run of one analysis per household; production output for actual clients varies with profile completeness and the firm's seat tier.