Most planning software wasn’t built for modern decision-making. It served a world where planning happened once a quarter in spreadsheets owned by finance.
That creates bottlenecks.
Today, planning has to be fast, continuous, cross-functional, and grounded in live data. The model needs to move with the business instead of documenting it after the fact.
Choosing the right platform is difficult because each tool is built for a different kind of planning problem. You might compare Anaplan vs. Pigment, or Anaplan vs. Adaptive, and miss the real question: how complex is your model, who owns it, and how often do you need to ask "what if?"
So stop asking about the "best" software. Start by asking which tool fits how your team actually plans, and who needs to live in the model day to day.
In this guide
This is a comparison of four modern FP&A platforms:
- Runway: Built for teams with a clear model owner who need flexible, scenario-heavy planning, fast implementation, and broad stakeholder adoption.
- Pigment: Enterprise-grade modeling for finance teams that need complex, multi-dimensional models and strict governance, and can invest in heavier setup.
- Anaplan: An enterprise heavyweight optimized for centralized control and global scale.
- Adaptive (Workday): A mature solution with deep integration into the Workday ecosystem, best when Workday is already your system of record.
We explain where each tool excels and where it struggles so you can match it to your planning style and model complexity. We break down key differences, and highlight the trade-offs between flexible modeling tools and heavy enterprise platforms, and show you how they compare on implementation speed and usage.
Platform deep dives
1. Runway: Built for teams that need to move fast
Website: https://runway.com/
Used by Superhuman, AngelList, and Kit, Runway was designed for how finance actually works inside a fast-moving business. In practice, that means centering the model owner: the person who has to live in the model, and answer "what if?" questions for everyone else.
It’s fast to implement, easy to understand, and powerful enough to simulate multiple what-if scenarios in real time. Runway’s models feel familiar to spreadsheet users, but add structure, auditability, and collaboration on top.
Core features:
- Human-readable, driver-level formulas that feel close to spreadsheets
- Flexible multi-dimensional modeling across entities, products, segments, and departments
- Real-time, multi-scenario planning with instant impact on runway, burn, and margins
- Collaborative planning with with granular access controls for finance and non-finance stakeholders
- Interactive dashboards and board-ready reporting that stay tied to the underlying model
- Integrates with 750+ systems, including NetSuite, QuickBooks, Gusto, Salesforce, and HubSpot
Strengths:
- Rapid implementation: most teams get to a live, usable model in days, not months
- Finance can fully own the model and adjust assumptions without relying on technical consultants or vendor services
- Handles multi-entity structures and evolving revenue streams without needing to rebuild your model every time the business changes
- Collaborative by default
- Intuitive for both finance and non-finance users
- Saved 818 Tequila over 50 hours per week in FP&A work
Limitations:
- Less suited if your top requirement is a highly-governed, IT-owned system of record rolled out to thousands of occasional users.
- If you prefer pre-built templates to dictate how your model should work, a template-first platform may feel more familiar.
- Works best with a clear model owner who understands the business and can own the logic. Without that, teams may struggle to fully unlock its flexibility.
2. Pigment: Enterprise-grade modeling with visual clarity
Website: https://pigment.com/
Pigment FP&A shines when you need advanced modeling and executive-level visuals. It’s more complex than Runway. Many teams treat it as an enterprise hub for multi-dimensional models with strong governance.
Core features:
- Real-time financial model updates
- What-if scenario planning
- Cross-functional collaboration tools
- Advanced visualization capabilities
Strengths:
- Strong visual modeling interface
- Breaks down silos between departments
- Supports complex, enterprise-scale models with granular controls
- AI-powered planning capabilities
Limitations:
- Steep learning curve creates barriers for non-finance users
- Modular pricing causes costs to escalate quickly
- Slower to implement and maintain effectively
- When comparing Pigment vs. Anaplan, Pigment usually offers a more modern, visual UX, while Anaplan emphasizes global scale, governance, and longer implementations
3. Anaplan: The heavyweight for enterprise planning
Website: https://www.anaplan.com/
Anaplan has been around longest, and it shows. It’s incredibly powerful, and incredibly heavy.
Core features:
- Unified real-time environment for planning
- Hyperscale computing capabilities
- Optimization and machine learning algorithms
- Robust security features
Strengths:
- Battle-tested at global scale
- Full-stack AI strategy: predictive, generative, agentic
- Flexibility for complex market circumstances
- When comparing anaplan vs adaptive, Anaplan stands out for its ability to handle the rigorous modeling complexity that large-scale enterprises demand
Limitations:
- Long implementation cycles (6–12 months common)
- Requires technical consultants
- Annual price increases of ~10% are standard
4. Adaptive (Workday): Traditional planning, tightly integrated
Website: https://www.workday.com/en-us/products/adaptive-planning/overview.html
Adaptive (now part of Workday) is reliable, mature, and deeply embedded into the Workday ecosystem.
Core features:
- Unlimited scenario analysis with machine learning
- Guided modeling capabilities
- Close management tools
- Strong reporting and consolidation
Strengths:
- Seamless integration with Workday and Oracle ERP
- Embedded AI and machine learning
- Mature platform with established support network
Limitations:
- Not built for fast-changing models
- UI feels dated
- Scenario planning requires more manual work
- Best fit when Workday is already your primary system of record, and you want planning tightly coupled to it
How they compare and key differences
- Runway delivers real-time, intuitive scenario planning. You get flexible, spreadsheet-like models that a finance owner can control, and implementation in days with built-in collaboration across teams. It connects to 750+ data sources, and is easy for non-finance users to understand.
- Pigment suits companies that want strong visual interfaces, and are ready to invest in an enterprise-grade modeling hub. If you're comparing Pigment vs. Anaplan, Pigment offers a more modern UI, but still requires significant setup and training, especially for non-finance users.
- Anaplan matches enterprises that need deep complexity and scale. The setup is long, expensive, and requires dedicated technical resources. It’s a good fit when you have a COE or IT team owning the platform and want a single, tightly-governed planning environment.
- Adaptive works best for orgs already on Workday. It offers reliable reporting and guided modeling, though it feels more siloed and less flexible for evolving models. For many teams, it’s "good enough" planning attached to their HR and finance stack rather than a standalone modeling upgrade.
Choosing the right FP&A platform
Choosing a tool comes down to what kind of team you are. More specifically: how you plan today, how complex your model is, and what’s slowing you down.
If you already have a working model in Excel or Google Sheets and your pain is simulating different futures, keeping versions in sync, and getting non-finance leaders to engage, you’re in one category. If your main pain is enforcing a single global workflow, and aligning to an existing ERP, you’re in another.
- Runway is built for the first group: small, scrappy finance teams (inside companies of any size) with a clear model owner who wants more leverage on their time.
- Pigment, Anaplan, and Adaptive skew toward the second: larger finance orgs standardizing process and governance, even if that means heavier implementations and slower change cycles.
Look for a solution that turns "did we hit plan?" into "what should we do next?" Modern finance demands agility, so prioritize platforms that let finance own the model, iterate on scenarios quickly, and bring non-finance stakeholders into the conversation.
Ask yourself:
- Will our team actually use this, or will it become another tool we work around?
- Can a model owner in finance get a working model live in days or weeks (not quarters)?
- When things change, can we test ideas in real time?
- Can non-finance stakeholders understand what the model says, drill into drivers, and see how their decisions change the numbers?
- Will we need vendor services or IT every time our business model changes?
For a detailed framework, see How to choose the right FP&A software.
Frequent questions
How should I decide between Pigment vs Anaplan if we’re a fast-growing but still mid-market company?
Ignore "mid-market" as a label and look at your planning reality.
Pigment FP&A fits best if you’re a finance team with growing complexity, a clear plan to centralize models, and appetite for a heavier tool that your team will deeply learn. It provides flexible modeling and strong visuals business leaders actually use.
Anaplan makes sense when you have multiple regions, complex structures, and a dedicated COE or IT team to own the platform. Teams often treat Anaplan as the system of record for large, global finance orgs. If your main goal is speed-to-value and broad adoption across non-finance stakeholders, both may feel heavier than you need.
When does Anaplan vs Adaptive (Workday) matter most for finance teams already on a big ERP?
Adaptive wins on simplicity and native integration if you’re deeply invested in the Workday ecosystem. It delivers reliable reporting, close management, and structured planning.
Anaplan vs Adaptive becomes the real question when you need highly granular, driver-based models, multi-entity complexity, or cross-functional use cases that go well beyond finance. Anaplan’s modeling flexibility and scale justify the extra implementation time and cost in those scenarios.
Where does Runway fit if we’re already comparing Pigment vs Anaplan and Adaptive?
Think of Runway as the option for speed-to-value and finance ownership of the model. It works perfectly if finance still fights spreadsheet habits.
Runway is built for teams that already have a model in Excel or Sheets and want to:
- simulate different versions of the future without breaking the file,
- keep versions and scenarios under control, and
- bring non-finance leaders into the model without losing clarity.
Runway’s quick implementation and human-readable approach complement or replace heavier tools when your biggest pain involves slow planning cycles. You can modernize forecasting and scenario planning now, while keeping the door open to heavier enterprise platforms later if your governance needs truly require them.
Final recommendation
If you’re a fast-moving team who needs:
- A model you can trust (and explain)
- A forecast you can adjust on the fly
- A shared surface where decisions get made
Start with Runway. It gives a model owner in finance the leverage to move faster, and pull the rest of the business into the plan.
If you have a large team, an existing process, and time to train new users, Pigment or Adaptive can work well as heavier, more centralized planning systems.
If you’re at enterprise scale with deep configuration needs and a large IT budget, Anaplan is built for that.
Book a demo to see why fast-moving teams at Superhuman and AngelList use Runway.