FactSet Irwin vs. IMS Platform

In our specific use case we used IMS to manage the investor acquisition process and manage reporting going forward. Basically, it's a powerful, real-estate focused CRM that understands our pain points and issues. Additionally, it was cost efficient for our organization since we weren't using any of the waterfall technology, nor did we have extensive complicated ownership structures that we needed to import. We were essentially starting from the beginning, with very few implementation needs. In this situation, the software worked perfectly. We have been very happy with the service and technology. That said, if you have an extensive investor relations apparatus and need something that requires a tremendous amount of implementation (i.e. an entire, existing, investor management system) it may be a more difficult process

Incentivized

• Investor Management
• K-1 Distribution
• New Investment Pages
• Clear Dashboards
• Customer Support

Incentivized

• Confusing UI (Hard to Use)
• Implementation Issues
• Missing Functionality

Incentivized

We evaluated IMS against Juniper Square and the Crowdstreet white label platform. IMS came to the top for us because of our specific use case (i.e. less implementation needs, primarily investor acquisition and investor management). Also, at the time, IMS was way more cost effective for the functionality that was offered compared to its immediate competitors

Incentivized

• Increased investor acquisition
• Increase investor engagement
• Saved significant time in managing investor
• Massive time savings in K-1 distribution
• High quality investor reporting system

Incentivized