MSCI Burgiss vs Cobalt (FactSet)
A side-by-side comparison of MSCI Burgiss and Cobalt (FactSet) — two options for modeling & valuation. Pricing, features, and honest pros and cons.
Category
Modeling & Valuation
Portfolio Monitoring & Metrics
Rating
4.3 / 5
4.1 / 5
Pricing
Enterprise / Custom
Enterprise / Custom
Best for
Benchmarking fund performance the way LPs will
GPs who want performance benchmarking and pacing alongside monitoring
Key features
- Private fund performance data sourced from LPs
- Vintage-year benchmarks by strategy and geography
- TVPI, DPI, IRR and PME analytics
- Portfolio analytics for allocators
- Integration with MSCI's broader risk toolkit
- Portfolio company KPI tracking and fund roll-ups
- TVPI, DPI, IRR, and PME analytics out of the box
- Pacing, forecasting, and scenario models
- Benchmarking against private markets fund data
- Track-record analytics for fundraising
Pros
- LP-sourced data avoids self-reporting survivorship bias
- The benchmark set institutional LPs actually reference
- Deep vintage history across market cycles
- Benchmarking and pacing analytics stronger than most GP-side tools
- FactSet ownership brings data depth and enterprise stability
- Serves both GP monitoring and LP portfolio management use cases
Cons
- Institutional pricing well beyond emerging-manager budgets
- Venture cuts are less granular than broad buyout coverage
- Less venture-native than founder-connected collection platforms
- Enterprise sales process and opaque pricing