Hazel vs Performativ (2026)
The first cut is blast radius. Hazel is a layer over whatever a wealth firm already runs, which means trying it risks little. Performativ is a replacement for the front to back stack. Replacing the platform that runs custody adjacent operations, billing and books and records is out of proportion to any documentation benefit, so the evidence that matters is completed migrations at your size and in your jurisdiction. 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 a live custodial integration 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 EU AI Act for those agents. Neither answers both: Hazel is silent on how agent actions are audited, Performativ on what its model providers retain.
- Custodial data depth is the differentiator you want. Hazel draws 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 documents its customer results in detail.
- Data boundaries are your first question. Hazel has zero retention arrangements with third party model providers and a stated refusal to train on customer data, and documents its integrations in detail.
- 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, and a builder lets firms create custom agents for regulated workflows. 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 DORA and the EU AI Act, with custom agents stated to operate in compliance with the EU AI Act, a commitment wealth platforms rarely state.
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
Select any grade to read the note behind it.
| 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 summarizing meetings, drafting follow ups, answering questions and prioritizing 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 draws on real time account, beneficiary, holdings and balance data from a major custodian. According to the AI FinTech Index, AI is central to the product, and Hazel documents in detail its customer results, how customer data is kept apart and used, and its integrations. Data commitments include zero retention arrangements with third party model providers and a stated refusal to train on customer data. It names no regulator for the software itself and says little about pricing, bias and fairness, accuracy testing, where data sits or recourse.
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. According to the AI FinTech Index, it documents in detail its customer results, how its agents are overseen, and its integrations. Four European instruments are named, including DORA and the EU AI Act. It says little about pricing, AI safety, bias and fairness, security certifications or the models it is built on.
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. Firms wanting capability without migration fit Hazel. Firms consolidating a legacy patchwork onto one European platform are Performativ's market, and the evidence that matters there is named migrations at their size. 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.
Which one governs its AI better?
They govern different things, and each answer matters. 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 EU AI Act for its custom agents. Hazel does not publish how an agent's actions are audited, and Performativ does not publish what its model providers retain. 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. Performativ is in 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.
Where does each publish the most, and the least?
Hazel publishes most on how central AI is, its customer results, how customer data is kept apart and used, and its integrations. It names no regulator for the software and says little about pricing, bias and fairness, accuracy testing, where data sits or recourse. Performativ publishes most on its customer results, how its agents are overseen, and its integrations. It says little about pricing, AI safety, bias and fairness, security certifications or the models it is built on. 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.
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 migration question applies to one side of this page only. Replacing the platform that runs custody adjacent operations, billing and books and records is out of proportion to any documentation benefit, so for a replacement vendor the evidence that matters is completed migrations at your size and in your jurisdiction. Performativ is the replacement here, and its customer evidence, documented in detail, matters most where it names migrations of that kind.
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 live custodial integration.
It says little about 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 work inside the same permission and audit environment as people, so accountability for any automated act is reconstructable, though nothing covers the vendor's own failure where the platform produces a wrong result. Hazel names no regulator or rule for the software itself. The parent's broker dealer and custodian status is a different matter from the platform's position, and automated tax planning at this scale is left unaddressed.
Performativ names four European instruments including the EU AI Act, though substantially through third party reporting rather than its own provision level material. Both say little about bias and fairness, and Hazel's specific unexamined exposure is that systematic misinterpretation would propagate identically across every client rather than varying by adviser judgment, concentrating precisely in the complex situations where tax planning matters most.