Atominvest vs iLEVEL

iLEVEL began inside Blackstone in 2006, spun out in 2010, was bought by Ipreo in 2015, moved to IHS Markit in the $1.855 billion Ipreo deal in 2018, and landed with S&P Global when it closed its $44 billion IHS Markit acquisition in 2022. More than 700 investors run on it, and ILPA has partnered with it to bring the platform to its members.

‍

That history is the reason to consider it and the reason to look closely. iLEVEL is a long-established, highly configurable data warehouse for private markets, now sitting next to Capital IQ financials, WSO loan data and S&P sustainability data.  

‍

Atominvest has a different proposition: a portfolio management platform built specifically for private equity and private credit firms, configured to each firm's operating model and carrying through from portfolio data to investor reporting and servicing.

‍

Commercially, the two look more alike than a feature matrix suggests. Both are standalone SaaS platforms, both charge an annual subscription plus a one-off implementation fee, and both take months rather than weeks to stand up. The differences that decide it sit elsewhere: how far each platform bends to the way your firm actually works, how much of that work the vendor does, and how far the platform reaches either side of monitoring. Here is how to tell which fits your firm.

‍

‍

The real question is how far the platform fits the way you work

‍

Every firm in this market is solving the same thing. Portfolio data arrives in Excel files, PDFs, board packs and lender packages, in inconsistent formats and too late to act on. Someone re-keys it, someone reconciles it, and quarter-end becomes a scramble.

‍

Both platforms address that, and both arrive configured rather than empty: in each case the vendor's team stands up the environment, the entity hierarchy and the initial data items during implementation. Where they part company is what happens afterwards - how much of your operating model the platform can absorb, and how much of the ongoing change lands on your team.

‍

That reframes the comparison around three questions a feature matrix will not answer:

‍

• How far can the platform be configured to your KPIs, workflows and approval rules, and how easily does that change when a new strategy or asset class arrives?

• How much of the build, the data migration and the ongoing change does the vendor do, and how much lands on your team?

• Does the platform end at monitoring and analytics, or does it carry through to the fundraising, onboarding and investor reporting either side of it?

‍

Where Atominvest and iLEVEL genuinely differ

How far the data model bends to your firm

iLEVEL's flexibility is real, and it cuts both ways. The G2 reviewer who calls it "a bit of blank slate that allows you to store whatever data you want" names the consequence in the same breath: a learning curve that is "fairly high", and a need for rigorous internal rules and training so data is entered consistently - "garbage in = garbage out". On Capterra, reviewers rate the platform well overall while naming what they cannot change: a "lack of flexibility in portal design / layout", and tables and custom views that are "limited".

‍

Atominvest is configurable where it counts: institution-specific KPIs across assets and strategies, a user-configurable KPI engine per strategy and asset class, configurable validation rules, approval workflows and audit trails, all configured with you during implementation and kept current with you afterwards rather than handed over at go-live. You get flexibility where it matters and structure where structure saves you.

‍

Similar timelines, a different commercial commitment

The ILPA vendor factsheet, published while the product sat with IHS Markit, sets out iLEVEL's commercial shape plainly: a typical implementation of two to five months, a one-time implementation fee, and an annual subscription on a three-year term, with software fees based on total private markets portfolio net asset value and optional managed data services priced on fund count and data type. It also notes that subscription fees recalculate annually against then-current NAV and fund count. Capterra's UK listing shows a starting price of £36,000 and rates value for money at 3.5 out of 5, its lowest sub-score.

‍

Atominvest sits in a comparable range and runs a structured five-phase implementation covering design and planning, build and configuration, data migration, testing and training, and go-live. Pricing is quote-based and modular, scaled to the modules you adopt and the complexity of your firm rather than indexed to net asset value, so the bill does not grow simply because your marks did.

‍

How much of the work the vendor does

There is a visible third-party market in running iLEVEL. Specialist firms sell advisory, implementation, data migration, resource augmentation, training and platform management for it, and Alpha FMC sells iLEVEL project management, reporting design and configuration, and business analysis covering data upload and data governance. That market is not proof the platform cannot be run in-house - one long-standing client reports expanding almost every process at the firm "without the need to add headcount or require external consulting" - but it is a real line item to price in if nobody internally owns the configuration.

‍

Atominvest pairs the software with its own implementation and customer success teams, who do the configuration and migration work and stay with the firm afterwards, and takes accountability for adoption rather than for go-live alone. That is a different commercial model, not just a different tone.

‍

Where the platform stops

iLEVEL is monitoring, analytics and reporting, sold alongside an investor portal and, increasingly, S&P's own data. It is strongest where that adjacency matters, and S&P has kept investing: automated data ingestion in February 2025, AI document search in August 2025 and a no-code Snowflake integration in November 2025.

‍

Atominvest covers the same ingest, validate, analyse and report chain, then continues into fundraising, investor onboarding, the investor portal and ongoing investor servicing on the same data model. If your quarterly cycle ends with a document in an LP's hands rather than a chart on a screen, that continuation is the difference.

‍

Why firms choose Atominvest

Atominvest is built to win on configurability, delivery and connected operations rather than on incumbency. Four things carry the weight.

1. Configurable to how your firm actually runs

Metrics, workflows, data structures and approval rules are configured to your operating model rather than to a house standard, with a user-configurable KPI engine per strategy and asset class. Bi-directional APIs, Microsoft Office plugins and integrations into fund accounting, CRM and deal systems mean the platform strengthens the stack you already have rather than sitting beside it.

And it is adopted a module at a time. Start with portfolio management where the pain is, prove the value, then expand without re-platforming. You avoid both fragmentation and enterprise drag.

‍

2. AI ingestion that handles the documents you actually get

Financials, KPIs, covenants and commentary are extracted straight from Excel files, PDFs, board decks, lender packages and the non-standard reporting packs every portfolio company seems to invent, in any format and on any cadence, with every data point validated, matched, time-stamped and auditable behind configurable approval workflows.

Firms report over 95% less manual data collection, over 80% faster quarterly reporting cycles, up to twice the monitoring frequency and up to 70% fewer operational handoffs.

‍

3. Built for private equity and private credit, not adapted to them

Cross-portfolio performance and covenant monitoring, automated borrower data collection with covenant tests run in-system and breaches raised as automated alerts, standardised profit and loss tracking across sectors, and a user-configurable KPI engine per strategy and asset class. Credit oversight becomes proactive rather than retrospective, because breaches surface as alerts rather than in next quarter's pack.

‍

4. Delivered, adopted, and kept current

Institutional software usually fails because it was configured rather than adopted. Atominvest pairs the platform with hands-on implementation and customer success, and keeps the operating model current as portfolios, covenants and reporting needs change. New code releases ship three times a week, shaped with a network of global fund managers.

‍

Where iLEVEL fits

iLEVEL has been in this category longer than anyone, and S&P ownership brings advantages that are specific rather than general. It is likely the right call if:

• You want S&P's data sitting next to your own. Peer Comparables pipes Capital IQ public company financials and consensus estimates alongside portfolio data, WSO supports private credit monitoring, and S&P sustainability data and private company data are sold into the same stack.

• You are an allocator or consultant operating inside an established network. ILPA partnered with the platform to bring it to its members, Cambridge Associates adopted it, and in September 2025 S&P Global, Cambridge Associates and Mercer announced a joint private markets performance analytics dataset.

• You want the data collection outsourced. S&P sells iLEVEL Managed Data Services, which puts "the private markets' most advanced data collection technology, and the expertise of 100+ data professionals, to work on your portfolio", and lists data collection among its standardised and bespoke iLEVEL services. That is an option if you would rather buy the labour than the workflow.

• You want a large counterparty with an active roadmap. S&P Global is a well-known name in procurement, and iLEVEL has shipped steadily: AI-powered automated data ingestion in February 2025, an AI document search tool in August 2025, and a no-code Snowflake integration in November 2025.

‍

Why Atominvest might be a better fit for you

Atominvest tends to win when configurability and adoption matter as much as raw capability, and when a firm would rather have one vendor across portfolio and investor operations. It is likely the better fit if:

‍

• You want the platform shaped around your KPIs, workflows and approval rules, rather than shaping your process around what the platform already does.

• You want one vendor accountable for the build, the migration and the adoption, on one contract, rather than a licence plus whatever services are needed to make it stick.

• You run private equity, private credit, or both, and want equity KPIs and covenant testing with automated breach alerts on the same platform rather than in adjacent products.

• Pricing that recalculates annually against portfolio net asset value is unattractive, because it rises with your marks and your fund count rather than with the work the platform does.

• Portfolio monitoring, fundraising, investor onboarding and investor servicing sit on one data model, so the reporting at the end of the quarter draws on the same source as the monitoring at the start of it.

‍

At a glance: how the two compare

This compares approaches and outcomes rather than feature ticks, because both platforms cover the basics, and how each is configured and delivered is what really differs.

‍

‍

‍

How to choose between Atominvest and iLEVEL

Four questions settle most of these decisions:

‍

• How much does the platform need to bend to you? If KPIs, approval rules and reporting differ by strategy or asset class, test both against your real operating model rather than a demo dataset.

• Who does the work, in year one and in year three? Both vendors configure the environment at the start; the question is what happens the next time the model has to change.

• How much is the S&P data adjacency worth to you? Capital IQ comparables, WSO for credit and S&P sustainability data count for a lot if you would otherwise buy them separately, and for little if you would not.

• Where does your reporting actually end? If the last mile is an LP document rather than a dashboard, weigh a platform where portfolio and investor data share one model.

‍