Two very different answers to the same question: how do you get finance teams to actually use the planning tool? We work with both - here's how they compare.
The short version
Vena keeps Excel at the centre. Your finance team works in the spreadsheets they already know, while an OLAP backend handles governance, version control, and consolidation behind the scenes. Over 1,000 customers, $300M in funding, a London office, and deep roots in the Microsoft ecosystem. If your team lives in Excel and refuses to leave, Vena meets them where they are.
Pigment asks your team to leave Excel behind entirely. Purpose-built interface, native agentic AI, natural language queries, 6-12 week implementations. Customers include Figma, Gong, and Unilever. 30+ integrations out of the box. If your team is ready for something modern, Pigment delivers a genuinely different experience.
This isn't a feature-by-feature contest. It's a philosophy question. Do you preserve the familiar, or do you start fresh? Both approaches work - the right answer depends on your people, not the software.
Feature comparison
| Vena | Pigment | |
|---|---|---|
| User interface | Excel-native, familiar | Purpose-built, modern |
| Implementation time | 8-14 weeks typical | 6-12 weeks typical |
| Annual license cost | Mid-market pricing | Mid-market pricing |
| Excel dependency | Core to the experience | No dependency |
| AI capabilities | Vena Copilot (emerging) | Native agentic AI |
| User adoption | High (familiar interface) | High (intuitive UX) |
| Target company size | Mid-market (100-2,000 staff) | Mid-market to enterprise |
| Integration approach | Microsoft ecosystem-first | 30+ native connectors |
AI capabilities
Both platforms are investing in AI, but their starting points and maturity levels differ significantly.
Vena's AI assistant works within the Excel environment, helping with formula creation, data queries, and template generation. It's early stage but evolving. The Microsoft ecosystem gives Vena a natural path to integrate Copilot-style AI into spreadsheets. For teams already in Excel, this feels like a natural extension rather than a new tool to learn.
Native AI built from the ground up. Natural language queries create dashboards instantly. Auto-detection of significant metric changes. Full explainability - every AI action is visible and traceable. Because Pigment controls the entire interface, AI is woven into every workflow rather than bolted on top of a spreadsheet layer.
Pigment's AI is further ahead today. Vena's Microsoft alignment gives it a strong roadmap. Neither should be the sole deciding factor, but if AI-driven planning is a priority right now, Pigment has the edge.
When to choose
Some finance teams have decades of muscle memory in Excel. Forcing them into a new interface creates resistance, shadow spreadsheets, and failed implementations. Vena respects that reality. Same formulas, same formatting, same shortcuts - but with governance underneath.
Teams, SharePoint, Power BI, Azure AD. If your entire tech stack is Microsoft, Vena slots in without friction. Single sign-on, familiar permissions model, Excel Online support. The IT team will thank you.
Years of Excel templates with intricate formulas, custom formatting, and specific layouts. Rebuilding all of that in a new interface takes time and money. Vena lets you bring those templates forward and add governance around them.
Department heads who submit budget requests in Excel today can keep doing exactly that - except now their inputs feed directly into a governed planning model. No training needed for occasional users. They open a spreadsheet and fill in their numbers.
When to choose
Excel constrains how you model. Rows, columns, cell references. Pigment's dimensional modelling lets you think about the business differently - slice by customer segment, product line, geography, and time without restructuring your workbook. It changes how finance teams approach problems.
ARR modelling, cohort analysis, churn forecasting, net revenue retention. Pigment's templates for recurring revenue businesses are genuinely useful. Companies like Figma and Gong chose it partly for this reason. The data model maps naturally to subscription metrics.
When sales, marketing, and operations all need to contribute to the plan, a purpose-built interface wins. Non-finance users find Pigment intuitive in ways they never found Excel models. Broader adoption means better data, which means better plans.
Board meeting in 8 weeks? New PE owners want forecasts next month? Pigment implementations typically move faster. The platform's design philosophy prioritises time-to-value over configurability. You get useful output sooner.
The honest truth
The same familiarity that drives adoption can also hold teams back. If your finance function needs to evolve beyond spreadsheet thinking, Vena may reinforce old habits. The Excel interface can mask the OLAP capabilities underneath, and teams sometimes don't use the platform to its full potential.
Leaving Excel behind means retraining. Even with an intuitive interface, some team members will resist. Budget for proper change management and training. The technology is the easy part - the people transition takes effort.
Vena Copilot is promising but early. If AI-driven planning is a near-term priority, you may find yourself waiting. The Microsoft partnership provides a credible roadmap, but roadmaps aren't features you can use today.
Fewer implementation partners, fewer community resources, smaller user community compared to Excel-based tools. Vena benefits from the enormous Excel ecosystem. If you need niche expertise or regional support, check availability before committing.
On pricing
Both platforms target the mid-market and price accordingly. Neither is dramatically cheaper than the other for comparable scope.
Vena's pricing often appeals to organisations already paying for Microsoft 365 - the Excel interface means less training investment. Pigment's faster implementation can offset higher per-seat costs with lower project fees and quicker time-to-value.
The real cost difference is usually in implementation and change management, not licensing. A Vena deployment to a team that already thinks in Excel will cost less in training. A Pigment deployment to a team ready for change will deliver value faster. Get specific quotes for your situation.
Alternative paths
Sometimes the answer is neither Vena nor Pigment.
You need connected enterprise planning. If sales territory planning, supply chain optimisation, or workforce planning sit alongside finance, Anaplan might be the better fit. It's designed for cross-functional connected planning at scale.
You have complex legacy requirements. Existing TM1 investments, extreme modelling complexity, or heavy allocation rules might point toward IBM Planning Analytics. It handles computational depth that neither Vena nor Pigment targets.
Consolidation is your primary need. If close management and statutory consolidation dominate your finance team's workload, platforms like Planful or CCH Tagetik may be more appropriate. Both Vena and Pigment can consolidate, but it's not their primary strength.
How to decide
How deeply embedded is Excel in your planning workflows? Count the templates, the macros, the custom reports. If the answer is "deeply and happily," Vena is worth a serious look. If the answer is "deeply and painfully," Pigment might be the fresh start you need.
Microsoft-heavy environments favour Vena. Diverse SaaS stacks with Salesforce, Netsuite, or HubSpot may find Pigment's native connectors more useful. Integration friction kills adoption.
Run proof of concepts with your actual finance team - not just the FP&A lead, but the budget holders and department managers who need to interact with the tool. Their reaction tells you more than any feature comparison.
Both vendors will tell you they're the right choice. Talk to someone who implements both and has seen what works in organisations like yours. Pattern recognition from dozens of deployments beats vendor demos.
Questions
The Bolt Blueprint includes a vendor-neutral platform recommendation based on your actual requirements, data complexity, and team capacity. From £5,000, credited if you proceed.
Start with the Bolt BlueprintWe work with both platforms and can provide objective guidance based on your specific requirements. No sales pressure - just honest advice from practitioners who've seen what works.