Hadrius vs Greenboard — Battle Card

🛡️ Hadrius us

AI-native compliance platform. ~60 staff, $27M raised to date. Founded by compliance practitioners — started as an RIA, built from lived compliance pain. Full suite: market-abuse trade surveillance, FINRA filing, branch exams, CE, eDiscovery, comms archiving, marketing review, and more. Stateless AI — your data is never retained or used to train the model. We are trying to be the most premium product in the space — we price based on the value we provide.

🏢 Greenboard them

AI-native compliance platform. ~20 staff. $20M total / $15.5M Series A (Base10, YC, General Catalyst — announced May 12, 2026). Founded 2023 by tech/AI founders — saw compliance as an AI application after ChatGPT, came via YC. Launched GreenboardGo conversational AI layer alongside funding. 500+ firms, 99%+ retention claimed. The lower-cost option.

🧭

Core principle: Price pressure is a signal, not the objection. It means the prospect hasn't yet seen the value that makes the difference in price worth it. People don't resist paying more — they resist paying more for something they don't yet see the value of. Our job is to make the real decision visible: not which platform looks similar on a demo, but which partner a compliance team wants beside them after signing, and can trust to scale with them. When the conversation collapses to price, we haven't failed on cost — we've failed to show the value. The depth of the platform, the quality of support, the long-term partnership, the speed to build new features, and the capability to scale. That's what we're selling.

Features

Only Hadrius does

Messaging + talk tracks

Objections

Pricing tracks

Their claims

Proof

Intel gaps

⚠️

Funding update (May 12, 2026): Greenboard closed a $15.5M Series A — $20M total raised. The ~$10M rep estimate in prior calls is outdated. Also launched GreenboardGo: a conversational AI layer that trains on your firm's records. Do not use the old funding figure in prospect conversations.

Both are AI-native, built on WORM/17a-4. At parity on comms archiving, marketing review, attestations, pre-clearance, and vendor due diligence. If that is your prospect's whole program, they are comparing price and feel. The gaps below are where the evaluation gets real.

Capability	Hadrius	Greenboard
Both platforms cover these
Comms archiving + AI supervision	✓ WORM, contextual AI review	✓ WORM, contextual AI review
Marketing review	✓ AI pre-screen, audit trail	✓ AI pre-screen, disclosure checks, live URL input in demo
Employee attestations + pre-clearance	✓ COE, OBA, brokerage feeds	✓ COE, OBA, brokerage feeds
Vendor due diligence	✓ AI-assisted, tracked. Neither platform is fully automated — human judgment is always required.	✓ AI-assisted, risk scoring. Neither platform is fully automated.
Only Hadrius covers these
Market-manipulation surveillance (client + employee)	✓ Front running, churning, cherry picking, wash trading, suitability. Trend analysis across trading activity.	✗ Employee personal trades and client account surveillance — no comms-to-trade link
FINRA registration filing	✓ Files U4, U5, Form BR, CE via FINRA Gateway	✗ Maintains U4/ADV repository only — does not file
Branch management + exams	✓ Branch-level oversight + exam workflows	✗ Not offered
Firm intelligence / AI context sharing	✓ Firms can provide regulatory context to their specific compliance setup; changes tracked and logged for regulators	✗ Not offered
Purpose-built testing dashboard	✓ Dedicated tools for running and documenting compliance tests	✗ Not offered
Check blotter workflows	✓ Review and supervision of check-related activity	✗ Not offered
Continuing education (CE)	✓ Built-in CE tracking and management	✗ Not offered
Enterprise eDiscovery	✓ Structured, audit-ready discovery capabilities at scale	✗ Not offered
Founder / domain background	✓ Compliance practitioners — started as an RIA, built from lived compliance pain	⚠ Tech/AI founders via YC 2024 — saw compliance as an AI application after ChatGPT
Data architecture	✓ Stateless — data never retained or used to train	⚠ Open architecture — GreenboardGo trains on your firm's records
Commercial + operational
Funding	✓ $27M raised to date	↑ $20M total / $15.5M Series A — Base10, YC, General Catalyst (May 2026)
Post-signing support	✓ Dedicated account strategist + forward-deployed engineer from day one. High-touch onboarding, training, ongoing human support.	✗ ~20-person team; one documented non-response on record. Support model unknown.
Pricing model	⚠ Module-based — can feel complex vs. bundled	✓ All-inclusive premium tier — simpler to evaluate upfront
Price point	⚠ Higher — ~$100–200/mo more at small firm sizes (rep estimate)	✓ Lower starting price — the default choice when cost is the primary driver
Security documentation	✓ Live Trust Center — instant share link	⚠ "Been a bit of a pain to ask for all their documentation"
Account aggregation	⚠ Confirm native approach internally before using this angle	✗ Uses Plaid outside Schwab/Fidelity — prospect-identified concern
Consultant referral network	⚠ Growing but not dominant in specific markets	✓ Embedded in regional compliance consultant ecosystems

⚠ = unconfirmed or rep-only claim. Greenboard capabilities reflect published docs as of June 2026. Confirm before using as a close argument.

Built by compliance practitioners — not AI engineers who discovered compliance

Greenboard was founded in 2023 by tech founders who saw compliance as an AI application after ChatGPT, then went through Y Combinator. Hadrius started as an RIA. The founders felt the pain themselves and built from lived experience — not abstract regtech theory. That is why Hadrius has FINRA filing, branch exams, CE tracking, and comms-to-trade surveillance. A tech-first team builds what they can see. A compliance-first team builds what examiners actually look for.

Greenboard: founded by AI/tech founders via YC — compliance as an AI problem, not a regulatory one

Trade surveillance for market manipulation — not just personal trades

Greenboard watches employee personal trading only. Hadrius surveils client and employee trading together for market manipulation — front running, churning, cherry picking, wash trading, leveraged-ETF suitability — with comms linked to trades and trend analysis across trading activity. For a broker-dealer, that is the difference between a personal-trading log and the surveillance program an examiner expects.

Example: An employee gets an email from a company's CEO on Monday and buys that stock on Tuesday. Hadrius links the message to the trade and flags potential insider trading automatically. Greenboard's trade tools never see the email.

Greenboard: employee personal trades only — no client surveillance, no comms-to-trade link

It files your FINRA registrations — not just stores them

Greenboard maintains disclosures behind Form ADV and U4 in a repository. Maintaining a record is not filing. Hadrius files U4, U5, Form BR, and CE straight through the FINRA Gateway. When you onboard an advisor, terminate one, open a branch, or track CE — the filing happens inside Hadrius. With Greenboard, you still file somewhere else.

Greenboard: maintains repository only — does not file

It runs your branch exams

Multi-branch broker-dealers must inspect branch offices and document it. Hadrius has branch-level oversight and exam workflows built in. If you have OSJs or branch supervision obligations, that work has no home on Greenboard.

Greenboard: not offered

Your data never trains the model

GreenboardGo — their newly launched conversational AI layer — runs on an open architecture that trains on your firm's policies and records. Hadrius runs stateless inference: your client data is never retained and never trains the model. For funds, broker-dealers, and firms going through security reviews, that is a cleaner answer — and increasingly important now that GreenboardGo is live.

Greenboard: GreenboardGo trains on your firm's records

What happens after you sign

This is the biggest difference that does not show up in a feature checklist. Every Hadrius customer gets a dedicated account strategist and a forward-deployed engineer from day one. High-touch onboarding, training, and ongoing human support. With Greenboard, the support model is unknown — and with ~20 people total, the bandwidth is limited by definition.

Greenboard: ~20-person team, support model unknown

Full capability list — only Hadrius

FINRA integrations and filings (U4, U5, Form BR, CE via FINRA Gateway)
Branch management and exams — full branch-level oversight and examination workflows
Market-manipulation trade surveillance linking comms to trades
Trade surveillance trend analysis — pattern detection across trading activity
Firm intelligence / AI context sharing — firms provide regulatory context to their compliance setup; logged for regulators
Purpose-built testing dashboard — dedicated tools for running and documenting compliance tests
Check blotter workflows — review and supervision of check-related activity
Continuing education (CE) tracking and management
Enterprise-ready eDiscovery — structured, audit-ready discovery at scale
Stateless AI data architecture — client data never retained or used to train

Default talk track

Full version

Greenboard is often the lower-cost option. That is fine. We have never wanted to be the cheapest option in the market. We are trying to build the best possible compliance product for real compliance teams. The biggest difference between us and Greenboard is what happens after you sign the contract. If a firm wants depth, real partnership, and a platform that can scale with them, that is where Hadrius wins.

30 seconds

Greenboard may be the cheaper option, but Hadrius is built for firms that care about real compliance depth, broader platform coverage, and what happens after the contract is signed. We should win when the buyer wants a serious long-term compliance partner, not just the cheapest starting price.

60 seconds

Greenboard can look similar from far away and may come in cheaper. But Hadrius is built from lived compliance pain. We started as an RIA, felt these problems ourselves, and built for actual compliance teams. Our platform is broader, our support is higher touch, and our partnership after go-live is a major part of the value. So the decision should not be "who is cheaper today." It should be "who do you want helping run your compliance program after the deal is signed."

Car analogy

People do not automatically buy the cheapest car. They ask what is better built, what will hold up over time, what is safer, and what will give them a better long-term experience. That is the same frame we want in this conversation.

Post-signing support story

How to say it

The difference between us and Greenboard is what happens after you sign. Once you become a customer, you are not being left alone with software and a help center. You are getting real people who help you make the platform work in the real world — a dedicated account strategist, a forward-deployed engineer, and high-touch onboarding from day one.

Questions that move the conversation forward

If we were the same price, who would you choose? Why?
Which workflows matter most to your team day to day?
Are you buying for the cleanest-looking UI or the best long-term compliance operating system?
What happens if your needs expand 12 months after go-live?
What kind of support do you expect once implementation starts?
If something goes wrong after launch, what kind of partner do you want on the other side of the table?

What not to do

Make pricing the only story

Get dragged into a feature-by-feature knife fight too early

Sound bitter about Greenboard being cheaper

Overstate or present unverified internal stories as external facts

Confuse a collaborative pricing posture with a race to the bottom

Abandon the value story while negotiating price

💬 "We're evaluating Greenboard alongside you"

Use the "honest consultant" frame. Give them permission to leave, then anchor the tradeoff clearly. This closed Brucker Wealth (✅ confirmed win).

"If cost is huge for you, go their way. The tradeoff: if you grow past 5–6 employees, their software starts to not perform as well. They're a team of ~20. We're a team of ~60." — Philip, call_194

💬 "Their funding is now comparable — they just raised a Series A"

Acknowledge it directly — don't let the prospect discover you had stale intel. Reframe from war chest to domain depth.

"You're right — they closed a $15.5M Series A in May, so the funding gap is narrower. What hasn't changed is why the product is built differently. Our founders came out of compliance — not AI. That shows up in what we built: FINRA filing, branch exams, comms-to-trade surveillance. Those aren't features you add later. You have to understand what an examiner expects before you write the code."

💬 "Greenboard just launched GreenboardGo — conversational AI for compliance"

Don't dismiss it — it's a real product. Redirect to data risk and workflow depth.

"GreenboardGo is interesting — it's a Q&A layer on top of your compliance records. The question worth asking is: does your data train their model? Their architecture is open, meaning your policies and records are used to train the system. Hadrius is stateless — nothing is retained. For a firm going through a security review, that's a meaningful difference."

💬 "Why are you 2–3x the cost for what looks like the same platform?"

Don't get defensive. Reframe what is actually being priced.

"At a glance, parts of the platform may look similar. The difference is depth, breadth, implementation quality, and what happens after the contract is signed. We are not pricing a lightweight point solution. We are pricing a more complete compliance platform with real support behind it."

💬 "They bundle everything — pricing is simpler"

Reframe modular as flexibility. Ask whether they want to pay for modules they won't use for two years.

"We are modular because your compliance needs in year one are not the same as year three. You start with what you need, and your dedicated account strategist builds a roadmap as your firm grows."

💬 "Their UI looks cleaner"

Acknowledge it, then bring the conversation back to what matters.

"That is fair feedback. A cleaner first impression is not the same thing as a better compliance operating system. Let's go deeper on the workflows that actually matter to your team — auditability, exam readiness, and what happens at year two."

💬 "They have the same features"

Push past the checklist. Features on a slide are not the same as depth of workflow.

"How deep do the workflows actually go? What does implementation look like? What does support look like after launch? What happens as your compliance needs get more complex?"

⚠️ "Our compliance consultant recommended Greenboard" — BIGGEST UNHANDLED LOSS DRIVER

Don't attack the consultant. Probe for conflict of interest quietly. The ISTO loss (only confirmed competitive loss) was driven by this exact dynamic — no rep has countered it with a confirmed win yet.

"Is the consultant advising you, or are they a reseller or affiliate of Greenboard?" — unverified counter; handle with care

💬 Enterprise/Fund: "We need security documentation before deciding"

Lead with the Trust Center proactively before they ask.

"It's been a bit of a pain asking Greenboard for documentation, which is why I shared our Trust Center link." — Marcelo, call_144

Two distinct tracks. Read the deal before deciding which to use. Never abandon the value story while negotiating.

Track 1 — Competitive pricing

When to use

The buyer clearly likes Hadrius. Price is the main blocker. The deal is strategically worth winning.

What to say

"I want the opportunity to win this with you. If you're willing to share what Greenboard quoted, I'll take it back internally and see how competitive we can get — because we really do want to work with you. I can't promise we will be the cheapest option, but I do want to see what we can do."

Guardrails

Be collaborative and on the buyer's side. Use pricing to keep the deal alive. Do not sound defensive about being more expensive. Do not abandon the value story while negotiating.

Track 2 — Premium positioning

When to use

The buyer is a strong fit. The team is buying for depth, scale, or long-term partnership. We should not compress price unnecessarily.

What to say

"We have never wanted to be the cheapest option in the space. We are trying to build the best possible product for compliance teams. At a glance, platforms can look similar — but depth, implementation quality, and support after the sale are not the same. We are not pricing a lightweight point solution."

Guardrails

Defend value before discussing flexibility. Make support and implementation part of the value. Re-anchor on long-term outcomes, not first-year cost alone.

Contract diligence track — if they go with Greenboard

If a buyer goes with Greenboard, encourage them to read the contract carefully — without sounding defensive.

"If you do decide to go that route, I would just encourage you to read the contract very carefully and understand what the pricing looks like over time, not just in year one. The starting quote is only part of the story. The support model and long-term pricing mechanics matter too."

What buyers should check: How future pricing can change beyond year one · What support model they are actually getting · Whether they are buying predictable partnership or just an attractive starting number

How to respond when prospects repeat Greenboard's own marketing claims.

Their claim "Broadest coverage"

If you look granularly at each platform, you will likely find this to be untrue. The firms who choose us — Allworth, JW Cole, Diversify, World, and others — did so because we had the strongest and most comprehensive solution. We would encourage you to do that granular comparison yourself.

Their claim "Most efficient archiving and supervision"

This is a very subjective statement. Archiving does not get more or less efficient — that is standard across the industry. On supervision efficiency specifically: do a deep dive on each of us and make that determination yourself. We welcome that comparison.

Their claim "Automated vendor due diligence"

Both of us have a vendor due diligence solution. Neither is fully automated — there are always parts of the process that require human judgment and intervention. Any vendor that implies otherwise is overselling.

Their claim "Customizable interactive employee workflows"

We have that too.

Their claim "Observable AI architecture"

We have that, with documentation we can provide directly to regulators. We also give firms the ability to fine-tune their own AI, and we track and log those changes as well — something regulators increasingly expect.

Their claim "Backed by top growth investors"

Our investors are higher tier — stack them up side by side. Regardless, our investors do not make the product. Our team does, and we invest in that team heavily.

Use these when a prospect wants evidence, not just claims.

22K → 800

Alerts/month at a 1,000-person firm — from 22,000+ to under 800 on Hadrius, while surfacing real violations that keyword tools had missed

80+

SEC and FINRA exams in production with zero deficiencies tied to Hadrius. SyntheticFi: 3 deficiencies vs. typical 6; SEC named Hadrius in its exit letter

$62K vs $33K

One CCO chose Hadrius at nearly double Greenboard's quote — on purpose, after seeing both. When a buyer pays double intentionally, the platform is the reason.

~$35K/yr

Average savings after consolidating onto Hadrius (replaces 5+ vendors). Evergreen Wealth chose Hadrius over Greenboard head to head.

Reference firms

Allworth · JW Cole · Diversify · World · SyntheticFi · Evergreen Wealth — firms that evaluated the market and chose Hadrius

5 questions to ask Greenboard before signing

Do you surveil client accounts for market manipulation, or only employee personal trades?

Can your trade surveillance connect our communications to our trades to flag insider trading?

Do you file U4, U5, Form BR, and CE for us — or only store the data?

Do you run branch office exams?

Does your AI retain or train on our data? (especially relevant now that GreenboardGo is live)

Surface these naturally in discovery: "Have you had a chance to ask Greenboard about…" — let the prospect do the comparison themselves.

ℹ️

Reps: update your funding talk track. The ~$10M figure from prior calls is outdated. Greenboard raised $15.5M Series A (May 2026) — $20M total. Acknowledge it proactively if a prospect raises it.

⚠️

What does GreenboardGo actually do in demos?

New product launched May 2026. Ask prospects who've seen it: "How did GreenboardGo work in the demo — what could you ask it, and where did the answers come from?"

⚠️

Do they have market-manipulation trade surveillance?

"Did Greenboard walk you through their trade monitoring module?" — if yes, clarify: does it cover client accounts or employee personal trades only?

⚠️

Actual pricing sheet

"Do you have their pricing in front of you? I want to compare apples to apples." — Greenboard sends quotes early; get the real number before conceding on price.

⚠️

Account aggregation outside Schwab/Fidelity

"How does Greenboard pull in data for other custodians?" — confirm Hadrius's native approach internally before deploying this angle

⚠️

Consultant referral — organic or affiliate program?

"How did you come across Greenboard — did a compliance consultant specifically recommend them?" — biggest unhandled loss driver; need to understand whether it's a formal referral/reseller arrangement

⚠️

Why did ISTO Advisors choose Greenboard?

Aman (ElevAIte) offered to debrief after going live on Greenboard — only confirmed competitive loss with no specific product reason on record. This debrief needs to happen.

⚠️

Is Greenboard competitive at enterprise/institutional scale?

After enterprise demos: "Did you consider any other vendors? What was your impression of Greenboard?" — rep claim only, needs prospect validation before using in enterprise deals

⚠️

Marketing review — URL workflow

"When they demo'd marketing review, how did they pull your content — URL, screenshot, or upload?" — Hadrius was unclear on its own capability in one demo; fix this internally first

Hadrius Sales · Compiled from 15 Sybill call recordings + Notion Competitive Playbook · June 5, 2026
Treat all findings as directional. Every rep claim is flagged. Confirm before using as a close argument.