MoneyGuidePro builds the plan PDF.

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

MoneyGuidePro published sample reports — three household plan PDFs distributed by Envestnet | MoneyGuide Engine: Rivalta Wealth vertical — one of six Run time: 21–24 min wall clock per household (Sample 24m06s · Sample 2021 21m07s · Smith 24m06s)

Their published sample plan, per household

MoneyGuidePro / goal-based planning workflow

Plan deliverable 50–90-page client PDF
Goal-funding scenarios & Monte Carlo success bars Yes (the headline output)
Recommendation tiles surfaced 5–12 per plan
Cross-domain conflicts surfaced as first-class output Resource-allocation tradeoffs shown via Play Zone sliders
Time-bound triggers (window-dated calls to action) Surfaced through advisor-driven workflow review
Alternatives considered & explicitly rejected with reasoning Modeled via scenario comparison; advisor narrates

One of Rivalta's six, across all three households

Rivalta / Wealth vertical, solo

Specialist agents per run 10
Recommendations (Sample / Sample 2021 / Smith) 15 / 16 / 18
Cross-domain conflicts (per run) 10 / 10 / 13
Time-bound triggers (per run) 1 / 3 / 3
Alternatives considered and rejected with reasons 36 / 40 / 41
Domains covered Wealth (+ 5 more available)

MoneyGuidePro's published plans share a structural format: a goal-funding success bar, a current-vs-recommended-scenario chart, a Play Zone interactive, and an action-item tile list. The math is different per household; the chapter sequence is the same. Below: a representative recommendation that fired only for that demographic in the Rivalta Wealth vertical, alongside the kind of recommendation the corresponding MoneyGuidePro plan surfaces in its tile section.

Household 1

Peter & Janice Sample

NJ, MFJ, 52/51, $285K W-2 dual income, $1.1M across two 401(k)s, daughter Jane age 11

HHI: $285,000
Retirement: $1.1M (2 plans)
Brokerage: $145K (taxable)
Posture: Peak earning + college horizon

MGP plan tile (sample format)

“Increase retirement plan contributions. Recommended Probability of Success rises from 73% to 89%.”

Rivalta Wealth recommendation s

Maximize Pre-Tax 401(k) Contributions with Catch-Up

Both spouses defer the maximum allowable amount into their employer 401(k) plans for 2026 — $24,500 standard plus an $8,000 age-50 catch-up each, $65,000 combined — cutting current taxable income by $65,000 and saving roughly $19,741 in combined federal and NJ tax. The tax-deferred growth compounds over the 15 years to retirement while lowering the current liability.

Retirement Income agent · confidence 0.95
Comprehensive Foundational Estate Plan

Establish the core documents to manage assets during life, avoid probate at death, and carry out the couple's wishes: a Revocable Living Trust, pour-over wills, durable powers of attorney, and healthcare directives. Retitle the primary residence and non-retirement liquid accounts into the trust.

Estate Planning agent · confidence 1.00
Establish and Fund a 529 Education Savings Plan

Initiate a 529 plan to fund the future college costs for the 11-year-old. Contributions grow federally tax-deferred and withdrawals are tax-free for qualified education expenses; as NJ residents the household can also claim a state income-tax deduction on contributions.

Investment Strategy agent · confidence 0.95

Household 2

Thomas & Holly Sample

NY, MFJ, 58/56, $215K W-2, $169K combined retirement (severely under-saved), $950K NYC co-op, $78K unrealized JTWROS gain

HHI: $215,000
Retirement: $169K (vs target $2M+)
NYC apartment: $950K FMV / $520K basis
Posture: 7-year bridge to retirement

MGP plan tile (sample format)

“Delay retirement to age 67. Probability of Success rises from 41% to 78%. Plan funds 87% of goals.”

Rivalta Wealth recommendation s

Pre-Retirement Catch-Up Contribution Maximization

Maximize pre-tax deferrals to each spouse's employer 401(k), including the age-50+ catch-up — a combined $65,000/year — directly addressing the critically low $169,000 total retirement balance. The resulting tax savings can be redirected into the taxable brokerage account or direct Roth IRAs.

Retirement Income agent · confidence 0.90
Ongoing Tax-Loss Harvesting Now, Gain Harvesting in Bridge Years

During working years, systematically harvest realized losses in the taxable account to offset gains and up to $3,000 of ordinary income annually, reinvesting in correlated (not substantially identical) positions. In the low-income bridge years (age 65–70), harvest long-term gains within the 0%/15% bracket to reset cost basis at little or no tax.

Investment Strategy agent · confidence 0.80
Hybrid Life/Long-Term Care Insurance (Single-Premium Asset-Based Policy)

Apply now, at ages 58/56, for a hybrid life/LTC policy funded with a single premium of roughly $70,000–$100,000, locking in preferred underwriting before decline rates climb and premiums rise materially between 55 and 65. Given the underfunded $169,000 retirement balance, size the premium (or use a 10-pay schedule) so LTC protection doesn't crowd out 401(k)/Roth accumulation.

Insurance Analysis agent · confidence 0.70

Household 3

Timothy & Susan Smith

VA, MFJ, 55/55, $165K HHI, $315K retirement, $200K rental property, son Matthew 17, zero estate documents

HHI: $165,000
Retirement: $315K
Rental property: $200K FMV / $110K basis
Posture: Foundational gap (no estate docs)

MGP plan tile (sample format)

“Save an additional $15,000/year. Probability of Success rises from 62% to 84%. College goal funded in scenario B.”

Rivalta Wealth recommendation s

Establish a Comprehensive Foundational Estate Plan

Create the core legal documents the household currently lacks — a Revocable Living Trust, pour-over wills, durable powers of attorney, and advance healthcare directives — centered on avoiding probate and providing for the 17-year-old. If the rental is placed in a Virginia LLC, title the membership interest in the trust's name so both the asset-protection and probate-avoidance objectives hold.

Estate Planning agent · confidence 0.75
Build a Retirement-Income Gap Plan: Age 67 Target, Social Security Timing, Widow's-Penalty Modeling

Build a coordinated income map for ages 55 through 73 integrating portfolio withdrawals, rental income, and Social Security timing. The default worth testing is delaying the higher earner's benefit to 70 for the 8%-per-year delayed credit, while modeling the widow's-penalty case where one benefit disappears and the survivor shifts to single brackets.

Retirement Income agent · confidence 0.82
Review Rental-Property Hold vs. Exit as Part of Retirement Cash-Flow Planning

Analyze the Virginia rental (worth about $200,000, generating $15,000 of annual net income, with $110,000 basis and known depreciation-recapture exposure) as a retirement-income asset rather than a stand-alone holding — weighing after-tax yield and concentration risk against an eventual sale to support college funding or a diversified retirement bridge reserve.

Retirement Income agent · confidence 0.73

Cross-domain conflicts the engine surfaced.

A planning workflow shows the user the trade-offs the user wants to see (the goal-funding bar moves). A reasoning engine shows the conflicts the user did not ask about — the ones two strategies create when they move the same lever in opposite directions. Rivalta surfaces 10–13 cross-domain interactions per household as first-class output; MoneyGuidePro renders trade-offs through advisor-driven Play Zone interaction and scenario comparison.

Savings-capacity overcommit · Sample

Maxing pre-tax 401(k) deferrals for both spouses (~$65,000), funding backdoor Roth for both (~$16,000), maxing the HSA (~$8,750), and 529 funding (recommended between $20,000 and $40,000) sum to roughly $110,000–$130,000 of annual outflow — before one-time items like DAF bunching (~$22,000). No single agent scoped its own ask against the others' simultaneous claim on the same finite savings capacity.
Double-counted recommendations · Sample

Backdoor Roth appears twice across the plan (once at $40,000, once at $16,000); maximizing pre-tax 401(k) appears twice ($100,000 with $19,700 in savings, then $65,000 with $19,741 in savings); 529 funding appears twice ($20,000 and $40,000). Read independently each looks correct; read together, the plan's aggregate savings and cash-flow totals are overstated or understated depending which duplicate is real — an error no single-agent or pairwise check surfaces.
Accumulation cash-flow ceiling · Sample 2021

Maxing both 401(k)s with catch-up (~$65,000), funding two direct Roth IRAs (~$16,000), and maxing the family HSA (~$10,750) already commits roughly $91,750 a year of savings. Layered on top, the insurance recommendation calls for a $70,000–$100,000 single premium for a hybrid life/LTC policy — a household earning $215,000 in NYC cannot fund both simultaneously.
Inflated conversion savings · Sample 2021

The systematic Roth conversion plan claims $242,575 in lifetime tax savings, but the only verified retirement balance on file is $169,000. Three recommendations — the conversion plan, the catch-up deferrals, and the direct Roth funding — each implicitly assume a larger retirement asset base than the household's verified facts support.
Liquidity drain, year one · Smith

LTC premiums (~$5,000–$8,000/yr), a 529 contribution (~$19,000), age-55 catch-up deferrals (~$65,000 of value), a possible Solo 401(k)/SEP contribution, and the tax due on a proposed $55,000 Roth conversion all draw on the same $160,000 liquid pool — in the same year college tuition begins. No single recommendation reconciles the aggregate simultaneous draw against one finite account.
Gifting vs. step-up forfeiture · Smith

The Entity agent's plan to gift discounted LLC interests in the rental to an irrevocable trust would strip the property's ~$22,720 basis step-up at death. But the household's $1,110,000 net worth sits far below the federal estate-tax exemption, so the gifting strategy trades a real capital-gains benefit for an estate-tax benefit the household doesn't need.

Time-bound triggers.

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

LTC underwriting window · All three households

Optimal LTC application window closes by age 60. Decline rates rise dramatically and premiums step sharply after. Sample (52/51) and Sample 2021 (58/56) are inside the window; Smith (55/55) is mid-window. The decision is dated; the math is not symmetric after the window closes.
Pre-Medicare ACA window · Sample 2021 + Smith

$15K–$25K/year of ACA premium tax credits available if MAGI stays within the 400% FPL limit, all the way to Medicare at 65. The pre-Medicare window directly couples Roth-conversion timing to subsidized health-insurance economics — converting too aggressively in this window costs both the ACA subsidy and the IRMAA tier.
MAPT 5-year lookback · Sample 2021 + Smith

Medicaid Asset Protection Trust funding must clear the 5-year lookback. If care is needed by age 75, the trust must be funded by age 70 at the latest. The decision is calendar-bound, not income-bound.

What the engine ruled out.

Across the three households, the Wealth vertical considered and explicitly rejected 117 alternative strategies with reasoning attached — the artifact a compliance reviewer reads to see why a thing was not done. MoneyGuidePro's deliverable focuses on the recommended scenario and its comparators; the path-not-taken reasoning lives in the advisor's workflow review, not in the published plan.

NJ 529 (NJBEST) state income-tax deduction for Sample rejected: New Jersey's up-to-$10,000 NJBEST deduction is available only to taxpayers with gross income of $200,000 or less; Sample's authoritative household income is $285,000, so the state deduction claimed by two peer agents is entirely unavailable.
Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) for Sample rejected (considered 2 times, estate + entity): combined estate is ~$2.15M, far below the ~$27.98M married federal exemption, so removing insurance proceeds from the estate saves zero federal estate tax; NJ has no estate tax and no life insurance policy is even confirmed in the verified facts.
S-Corporation election / pass-through entity for Sample rejected (considered 2 times, tax + entity): client facts list only two unspecified income sources totaling $285,000 and record no business entity, self-employment income, or K-1 — a self-employed retirement or entity structure cannot be built on assumed facts.
Qualified Personal Residence Trust (QPRT) for Sample rejected (considered 2 times, estate + entity): estate is well below the federal exemption, so discounting a gift of the $720,000 residence produces no transfer-tax benefit, and a QPRT would strip the basis step-up for a couple in their early 50s with decades of expected residence use.
Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) for Sample 2021 rejected (considered 5 times — tax, estate, insurance, entity, and synthesis independently): net worth of $1,480,000 is far below the ~$7.16M 2026 New York estate-tax exemption and the federal exemption, so removing the $500,000 term policy from the estate saves nothing; setup and Crummey-notice administration cost more than the non-existent benefit.
Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT) installment sale for Sample 2021 rejected (considered 2 times): no business or closely-held interest appears in the verified client facts, and the estate is far below the federal exemption, so there is no appreciation that needs freezing out of the estate.
Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (reverse mortgage) for Sample 2021 rejected: FHA reverse mortgages generally do not accept cooperative units as eligible collateral, and the household's only real estate is an NYC co-op; the couple is also under the age-62 minimum and holds sufficient liquid assets, making the idea both ineligible and premature.
Fund every recommendation in full concurrently for Sample 2021 rejected: funding all deferrals plus the LTC single premium in the same year is mathematically infeasible on ~$215,000 gross given NYC taxes and co-op carrying costs; it would force high-interest borrowing or a default on either the deferrals or the premium.
Family Limited Partnership (FLP) for Smith rejected: liquid investments of $160,000 plus rental equity of $200,000 total a $360,000 non-retirement pool, below the threshold where FLP legal and accounting setup costs ($5,000–$10,000+) provide a net benefit — and the federal estate exemption is high enough that there is no urgent transfer-tax problem to solve.
Cost-segregation study on the $200,000 rental for Smith rejected (considered 2 times — business wealth + investments): household MAGI of $165,000 exceeds the $150,000 ceiling for the $25,000 active-participation passive-loss allowance, so accelerated losses would be suspended, not usable now; the engineering-study cost likely exceeds the value of merely reshuffling depreciation timing that can't be deducted currently.
Solo 401(k)/SEP-IRA and family-employment Roth funding tied to a business for Smith rejected: both proposals are conditioned on bona fide self-employment income or an operating business employing the 17-year-old child; the authoritative facts list only passive rental real estate and confirm no active business or self-employment income, so neither strategy can be recommended on assumed facts.
Max out retirement catch-up, fully fund the 529, and fund LTC premiums concurrently for Smith rejected: over-commits the $160,000 liquid base just as tuition begins, forcing withdrawals from taxable assets or a reduced emergency reserve — a strain flagged independently by nearly every specialist agent on the household.

+ 105 additional alternatives in the full result blobs across the three households, each with reasoning.

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. Fifteen, sixteen, eighteen recommendations across three households. Conflicts caught, triggers surfaced, alternatives reasoned through.

Tax Strategy 8 agents · production

Would deepen the Sample 529 superfunding against NJ-conformity rules, model Sample 2021's Roth conversion ladder against IRMAA tiers and the SECURE Act 10-year rule, and run Smith's cost-seg study against passive-loss-limitation §469 thresholds.

Estate & Trust 8 agents · production

Would build the Smith foundational document package (trust, POAs, HIPAA) as a sequenced multi-month engagement, structure Sample 2021's revocable trust to coordinate with the NYC apartment Section 121 timing, and design the Sample minors'-subtrust structure for Jane's benefit.

Insurance 8 agents · production

Would close Thomas's $500K term gap to the 10×-income adequacy floor, price the hybrid LTC product at the Sample 2021 actuarially-optimal window, and surface the Smith household's missing umbrella policy given the $200K rental and son-driver exposure.

Business & Real Estate 9 agents · production

Would own the Smith rental's 1031-vs-sale decision tree with full §1250 recapture modeling, run the Sample 2021 NYC apartment basis schedule and sale-cost analysis, and assess any future commercial-real-estate or business-purchase opportunity the households evaluate.

Trade 7 agents · production

Does not fire for households without active trading or concentrated single-stock positions. None of the three sample households have active option books or RSU stacks of the size that triggers Trade. For active traders, Trade reads the position book and surfaces bias-aware behavioral signals against the household's wealth plan.

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.

MoneyGuidePro is a good goal-based planning workflow 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.

MoneyGuidePro

~$166 /seat/month

Job-to-be-done

Drive a financial planning workflow from goals to a client-ready PDF. Run Monte Carlo simulations on goal-funding scenarios, present probability of success, drive client conversation through Play Zone sliders, and output a comprehensive planning deliverable.

Output shape

A 50–90-page client plan PDF with goal-funding bars, scenario comparisons, recommendation tiles, and implementation checklists. Same chapter structure every time; the math changes per household.

Domain

Goal-based financial planning workflow.

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.

~6× the unit price. Six domains, not one. A reasoning system, not a workflow. A different shelf in the store.

So what did this page show?

That on three published MoneyGuidePro sample plans — representing the full demographic spread MoneyGuidePro markets across — one of our six verticals, running for twenty-one to twenty-four minutes per household, produced forty-nine recommendations across three different demographics, considered one hundred seventeen alternatives across the three runs, and surfaced thirty-three cross-domain interactions and seven time-bound triggers. MoneyGuidePro publishes a comprehensive goal-based planning workflow; 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. MoneyGuidePro is a goal-based planning workflow; Rivalta is a multi-domain reasoning system. They do not do the same job.

1 of 6 verticals shown
49 recommendations across 3 households
33 cross-domain conflicts
7 calendar triggers
117 alternatives considered

If you are picking between MoneyGuidePro at ~$166 and Rivalta at $999, you are picking between a comprehensive planning workflow and a multi-domain reasoning system. They do not do the same job. The price tells you that.

See Sample Dossier

Sources. MoneyGuidePro published sample reports — three household plan PDFs distributed by Envestnet | MoneyGuide as marketing material (Sample plan, 2021 Sample plan, Smith plan). Rivalta output produced 2026-05-12 by the Wealth vertical against three independent household profiles reverse-engineered from each MoneyGuidePro 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. MoneyGuidePro pricing references the publicly-cited Envestnet | MoneyGuide list price for the Pro tier ($1,995/year per advisor); actual pricing varies by enterprise contract.

Disclosure. This is comparative-advertising material. Rivalta is not affiliated with Envestnet | MoneyGuide or MoneyGuidePro. 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.