Hazel vs Performativ (2026)
The first cut is blast radius. Hazel is a layer that sits over whatever a wealth firm already runs, which means trying it risks little, and Performativ is a replacement for the front to back stack, which means the lane's standing buyer question lands squarely on it: replacing the platform that runs custody adjacent operations, billing and books and records is out of proportion to any documentation benefit, so make it name completed migrations at your size and in your jurisdiction before its strong evidence grade counts for anything. Past that cut, the two govern AI in different currencies, and each publishes what the other does not. Hazel governs data, with zero retention arrangements at its model providers, a refusal to train on customer data, and the deepest live custodial integration in this lane feeding a tax capability that turns returns and pay stubs into client ready plans. Performativ governs action, running agents inside the same permissions and audit trails as employees so any automated act traces to an actor and an authority, and naming the European artificial intelligence regulation for those agents. Ask Hazel the action question and Performativ the data question, because neither answers both.
- Custodial data depth is the differentiator you want. Hazel was the first platform of its kind to draw on real time account, beneficiary, holdings and balance data from a major custodian, and it is sold to advisers regardless of where they custody, unifying conversations, emails, documents, calendars and client systems with market, regulatory and live custodial data.
- Tax season is where your hours go. The tax planning capability reads and interprets tax returns, pay stubs, account statements, emails, meeting notes and custodial records, applies tax logic and produces client ready plans in minutes, and Hazel holds A on AI centrality and A on operational and outcome evidence.
- Data boundaries are your first question. Zero retention arrangements with third party model providers and a stated refusal to train on customer data underpin A on AI safety and data stewardship, alongside A on core systems and integration depth.
- You are replacing the stack, not layering on it. Performativ covers portfolio management, trading, performance and attribution, risk analytics, compliance, client reporting and multi custodian aggregation in one cloud platform, with full European data residency offered as a deliberate contrast to United States incumbents.
- Agents should be governed exactly like employees. Data, workflows and permissions are structured so people and AI agents operate inside the same controlled auditable environment, a builder lets firms create custom agents for regulated workflows, and Performativ holds A on autonomy and oversight and B on liability and recourse, because a dispute about an automated action becomes a documented chain showing which actor acted, under whose authority and when.
- The European rulebook is named, including the one that governs agents. Four instruments appear including the operational resilience regime and the European artificial intelligence regulation, with custom agents stated to operate in compliance with it, which is rare in this index and directly relevant.
This comparison is published by AI FinTech Index, an independent research platform that publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for financial services. Hazel and Performativ are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI FinTech Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Hazel | Performativ | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Wealth & Advisory AI | Wealth & Advisory AI |
| Founded | 2025 | 2020 |
| Headquarters | Los Angeles, California, United States | Copenhagen, Denmark |
| Website | hazel.ai | www.performativ.com |
Side by Side
| Axis | H Hazel |
P Performativ |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model Risk Management and Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| GLBA and Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| Regulatory Status and Licensure | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| AI Liability and Recourse | ||
| Model Supply Chain Disclosure | ||
| Core Systems and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Institution and Segment Coverage |
The short version of each
Hazel
Hazel is an AI platform for wealth managers built by the custodian Altruist and sold to advisers regardless of where they custody, unifying a firm's knowledge from conversations, emails, documents, calendars and client relationship systems with market, regulatory and live custodial data, then capturing and summarising meetings, drafting follow ups, answering questions and prioritising work. Its tax planning capability reads and interprets tax returns, pay stubs, account statements, emails, meeting notes and custodial records, applies tax logic and produces client ready plans in minutes, and it was the first such platform to draw on real time account, beneficiary, holdings and balance data from a major custodian. The AI FinTech Index grades it A on AI centrality, operational and outcome evidence, AI safety and data stewardship and core systems and integration depth, with B on institution coverage, GLBA posture, autonomy and oversight, security certifications and model supply chain disclosure, documenting four of the nine regulatory axes the index tracks against an index average of 2.93 across 489 vendors. Data commitments include zero retention arrangements with third party model providers and a stated refusal to train on customer data. Commercial transparency, regulatory status, governance and bias disclosure, model risk management, deployment residency and liability and recourse are graded C.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Performativ
Performativ replaces the patchwork of legacy systems European wealth and asset managers run across front, middle and back office with one cloud platform covering portfolio management, trading, performance and attribution, risk analytics, compliance, client reporting and multi custodian data aggregation. Its distinguishing architectural choice is that data, workflows and permissions are structured so people and AI agents operate inside the same controlled auditable environment, with a builder for custom agents in regulated workflows and full European data residency offered as a deliberate contrast to United States incumbents. The AI FinTech Index grades it A on operational and outcome evidence, autonomy and oversight and core systems and integration depth, with B on AI centrality, institution coverage, GLBA posture, regulatory status, model risk management, deployment residency and AI liability and recourse, documenting six of the nine regulatory axes the index tracks against an index average of 2.93 across 489 vendors. Four European instruments are named including the operational resilience regime and the European artificial intelligence regulation. Commercial transparency, AI safety, governance and bias disclosure, security certifications and model supply chain disclosure are graded C.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Hazel better than Performativ?
They are different purchases with different blast radii. Hazel is an AI layer over whatever a wealth firm already runs, distinguished by live custodial data depth and a tax planning capability that turns documents into client ready plans. Performativ is a replacement for the entire front to back stack, with agents governed inside the same permissions and audit as staff. The AI FinTech Index grades Performativ at six of the nine regulatory axes and Hazel at four. Firms wanting capability without migration should look at Hazel; firms consolidating a legacy patchwork onto one European platform are Performativ's market, and should demand named migrations at their size first.
Which one governs its AI better?
They govern different things and a careful buyer wants both answers. Hazel governs the data: zero retention arrangements with its third party model providers, a stated refusal to train on customer data, and custodial integration that keeps records live rather than copied about. Performativ governs the action: agents operate under the same permissions and audit trails as people, so any automated reconciliation or report traces to an actor, an authority and a time, and it names the European artificial intelligence regulation for its custom agents. Ask Hazel how an agent's actions are audited, and ask Performativ what its model providers retain, because each vendor's published strength is the other's silence. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
If the AI gets my situation wrong, does either give me a route?
Neither directly, and the gaps differ. Hazel's client has their tax return, pay stubs and meeting notes interpreted by a model, with nothing describing notice, explanation or correction, and the published disclaimer that the firm does not provide tax advice allocates responsibility to the adviser without giving the client anything. That is a C on liability. Performativ holds B, the stronger position, because identical audit trails for agents and people mean a disputed automated action becomes a documented chain rather than an argument, though the client still deals only with their wealth manager and no vendor correction process exists. In both cases the regulated firm answers to the client and the vendor answers to the firm. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does the AI FinTech Index grade Hazel and Performativ?
Both are graded on the same fifteen capability axes, with every grade traceable to the public artifact it was read from and the date it was verified, and the index publishes no composite score. Performativ documents six of the nine regulatory axes at A or B and Hazel four, against an index average of 2.93 across 489 vendors. Hazel holds A on AI centrality, operational evidence, AI safety and data stewardship and core systems integration, with B on institution coverage, GLBA posture, autonomy, security certifications and supply chain, and C on commercial transparency, regulatory status, governance and bias, model risk, deployment residency and liability. Performativ holds A on operational evidence, autonomy and oversight and core systems integration, with B on AI centrality, institution coverage, GLBA posture, regulatory status, model risk, deployment residency and liability and recourse, and C on commercial transparency, AI safety, governance and bias, security certifications and supply chain.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Wealth & Advisory AI page.
The lane's published buyer question applies to exactly one side of this page and should be put there. Replacing the platform that runs custody adjacent operations, billing and books and records is out of proportion to any documentation benefit, so a replacement vendor should be made to name completed migrations at your size and in your jurisdiction, and Performativ is the replacement here, holding A on operational evidence that a buyer should convert into named migration references before weighting it.
Hazel is a layer over whatever a firm already runs, which is a different risk class entirely. The two answer the governance of AI in opposite currencies. Hazel governs data: zero retention arrangements with model providers, a refusal to train on customer data, and the deepest custodial integration recorded in this lane, with C on liability because the client whose tax return and pay stubs a model interpreted gets no notice, explanation or correction route, and the published position that the firm does not provide tax advice resolves the vendor's exposure rather than the client's.
Performativ governs action: agents inside the same permission and audit environment as people, so accountability for any automated act is reconstructable, earning B on liability, with nothing covering the vendor's own failure where the platform produces a wrong result.
Hazel grades C on regulatory status, naming no regulator or rule for the software itself, with the parent's broker dealer and custodian status a different matter from the platform's position, and automated tax planning at this scale left unaddressed. Performativ names four European instruments including the artificial intelligence regulation, though substantially through third party reporting rather than its own provision level material.
Both grade C on governance and bias, and Hazel's specific unexamined exposure is that systematic misinterpretation would propagate identically across every client rather than varying by adviser judgement, concentrating precisely in the complex situations where tax planning matters most.