When advisers search for AI suitability report software, they usually want less retyping: a path from a known fact-find and recommendation to a reviewable first draft, not another evening rebuilding Word from a blank page.
The phrase covers at least three different products. Paste-into-ChatGPT, generative tools that draft the regulated report (often into the firm’s Word templates), and structured constructors where generative AI does not write the report all get labelled “AI”. Mixing them up leads to the wrong trial and the wrong compliance conversation.
This page defines the category first, then offers a short, fair look at named options using only public vendor facts (checked 5 October 2026). It is educational — not FCA guidance. No tool, including ours, makes a firm “compliant”. The adviser still gives the advice; the software, at best, produces a first draft you review.
ProSuitability sits in the third bucket: a drafting tool (fact-find + recommendation → structured first draft → review and export to Word). Our line is suitability reports you review, not retype. Related reading: AI suitability report software vs ChatGPT (paste risk), how ProSuitability differs (named-rival deep dive), and suitability report software for small UK advice firms (small-firm shopping list).
Why the phrase is confusing
“AI” in vendor marketing can mean:
- a general consumer model used as a writing aid;
- generative drafting that authors report wording into a firm template;
- optional suggest-only helpers around a structured report that is not AI-authored;
- automation, content libraries, or “smart” builders that still rank when buyers type “AI”, even when the vendor does not primarily say “AI writes the report”.
A firm that must keep its Word house style is shopping differently from a firm that wants a structured constructor with Word export and no generative report writing. Both may type the same query.
Under COBS 9 / COBS 9.4 the firm must still show why this recommendation fits this client. Under the Consumer Duty the report still has to support understanding. Software does not change that floor. See how to write a suitability report under COBS 9 and Statements of Needs and Demands.
Three things people mean
This table aligns with the buckets on our ChatGPT page without repeating that page’s rival price list. Check each vendor’s site for current pricing.
| Bucket | What it actually means | Public examples (checked 5 Oct 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| A. Paste into consumer ChatGPT | A general chat product — no firm-owned suitability workflow, no built-in report constructor, no audit trail of how your draft was built. Pasting client detail is a firm data-handling decision. | Consumer ChatGPT and similar general assistants |
| B. AI that drafts the regulated report | Generative drafting of suitability-report wording, often into the firm’s own Word templates, with human review still expected. | Templi (fact-find + recommendation → reviewable draft in firm Word templates). AdvisoryAI Emma (reports from firm templates; wider “AI co-worker” platform). |
| C. Constructor / structured drafting — generative AI does not write the report | Fact-find + recommendation → structured first draft from a fixed report structure / paragraph library; you review and export. Optional AI companions stay suggest-only. | ProSuitability (Report Constructor; optional Virtual Paraplanner is suggest-only Needs & Demands and does not write Constructor fields) |
Also nearby in search: compliance-workflow and customisable builders — ATEB Suitability / ATEB Insights and Genovo — often appear alongside this phrase even when their public positioning emphasises compliance content, libraries and integrations rather than “AI writes the report”. Treat them as peer options in the wider category, not as identical to bucket B.
What a good buyer checklist looks like
- Draft quality — A first draft that mirrors this case, or a blank page with names swapped in? The tool should remove retyping, not invent the advice.
- Who writes the words — Generative AI into a template (B), structured constructor (C), or customisable vendor workflow (Genovo / ATEB-style)? That answer drives the compliance conversation.
- Template story — Keep your Word templates (Templi / AdvisoryAI-style), use a rich vendor builder (Genovo / ATEB-style), or a structured constructor with Word export (ProSuitability)?
- Integrations — Back-office sync on day one, or standalone enough? Integrations mainly save re-keying client details; they do not write the recommendation or reasons.
- Trial friction — Published pricing where available, card or no card, cancel terms. Prefer a real (anonymised) case over a brochure alone.
- Claims hygiene — Prefer “draft / review / you remain responsible” over “we make you compliant”. Be wary of percentage time-saves and “guaranteed suitable” language from any vendor — including us; we do not use those claims.
No checklist replaces a trial on a live-shaped case.
A fair look at named options (public sites only)
Compact table only — full named-rival pages live at how ProSuitability differs. Rival £ prices are not listed here; commercial pages move and have not always been like-for-like across a vendor’s own site. Facts re-checked 5 October 2026.
| Option | Public positioning (5 Oct 2026) | Honest best-fit line |
|---|---|---|
| Genovo | Customisable online suitability report builder with content libraries, template library, and integrations (Intelliflo Office, Xplan, Curo, Plannr, Dynamic Planner named publicly). Plans & pricing; 30-day trial; FAQ says a card is required to start. | Mature customisable builder when you want integrations and multi-user roles. |
| ATEB Suitability (ATEB Insights) | Compliance expertise via a platform — policy-team content, templates, audit trail, integrations. Site notes the move to ATEB Insights after Saturn’s acquisition. “Your compliance team. Not another software.” No list price on marketing home — discovery call / check their site. | Compliance-led content model; evaluate via demo rather than self-serve pricing. |
| Templi | Fact-find + recommendation → first drafts to review, edit and export in your firm’s Word templates. Emphasises document fidelity; firm remains responsible for advice, wording and approval. Pricing: check site / book a demo. | Keep your Word templates and house wording; generative drafting around that fidelity (bucket B). |
| AdvisoryAI (Emma) | “AI co-worker” (home page now names it Atlas); Emma drafts suitability reports from your firm’s templates, plus wider tools and named back-office connections (Intelliflo, Plannr, Curo, XPlan). Pricing: 14-day trial, no credit card — check that page for current per-user figures (their own page has shown inconsistent headline numbers; we omit £ amounts). | AI-native drafting stack plus wider firm tooling when the commercial model fits (bucket B). |
| ProSuitability | Drafting tool (bucket C): case → structured first draft → review & export Word. Constructor hardcoded; generative AI does not write the suitability report. Optional Virtual Paraplanner is suggest-only Needs & Demands and does not write Constructor fields. Solo £35/mo +VAT; Multi £35 + £7 per extra Admin/Author; VP £3/adviser/mo +VAT after trial; Enterprise 11+. Trial with no card; monthly cancel. Standalone — no practice-management integration claimed. | Low-friction constructor and Word export without an AI-writes-the-report or integration stack up front. |
Verify on: Genovo, plans & pricing, ATEB, Templi, AdvisoryAI Emma, AdvisoryAI pricing, our pricing and product.
How ProSuitability fits (and does not)
- Bring in the case — fact-find and recommendation.
- Generate a structured first draft — Report Constructor, not generative report authorship.
- Review and export to Word — you edit, check, and own the file.
Optional Virtual Paraplanner is a suggest-only Needs & Demands companion. It does not write Constructor fields or the suitability report. Included in every trial; after trial £3 per billed adviser / month + VAT, or stay on core only.
We do not claim to be “AI that writes your suitability report” (bucket B), FCA authorisation of the product, ISO / SOC / Cyber Essentials, “guaranteed suitable” outcomes, fixed percentage time-saves, or practice-management integration. Hosting and subprocessors: security — DigitalOcean London UK; Cloudflare, DigitalOcean, Stripe, Resend.
Want generative drafting into your Word templates? Templi or AdvisoryAI Emma — not us. Want compliance-content or a deep customisable builder? ATEB or Genovo may fit better. ChatGPT paste → sibling. Small-firm list → Week 1. Named rivals → how we differ.
FAQ
Is ProSuitability “AI suitability report software”?
In bucket terms we are a constructor (C): a drafting tool whose Report Constructor produces a structured first draft. Generative AI does not write the suitability report. Virtual Paraplanner is suggest-only for Needs & Demands. If “AI software” means “AI authors the regulated report into our Word template”, that is bucket B — not us.
Does AI write our suitability report in ProSuitability?
No. The draft comes from the hardcoded Report Constructor and the case details you enter. Virtual Paraplanner does not write Constructor fields.
Do I need ChatGPT as well?
Not for the report workflow. A general chatbot is not a firm-owned suitability constructor. Firm policy on chat tools for non-client work is separate. See AI suitability report software vs ChatGPT.
Does this make us Consumer Duty / COBS compliant?
No. Under COBS 9 the firm must still show why the recommendation suits the client. Under the Consumer Duty the report still has to support understanding. Software can structure a draft and reduce retyping; it cannot certify the advice. The adviser remains responsible.
Soft next step
If a constructor-style drafting workflow fits, start a free trial — no card required. Or read how the product works, pricing, and the Resources hub.
Sources / last checked
Public vendor pages re-checked 5 October 2026 (Europe/London): Genovo home + plans & pricing; ATEB Suitability home; Templi suitability-reports product page; AdvisoryAI home, Emma product page, and pricing page. Features and commercial terms change — verify on each vendor’s site before you decide.