DealsPlus

Name: DealsPlus
Brand: DealsPlus

AI Native

Digitise Private Equity Investment Structures. We're hiring!

Est 2020

LinkedIn 7K|Website|FTEs 43|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsEntity Management Capital & Equity Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

DealsPlus vs cap table/equity platforms (Carta, Astrella, Pulley) - Potential strengths: If the product addresses multi-jurisdiction holding structures, portfolio-level structure charts, compliance, and audit-ready documentation, it may be more closely aligned to PE operational needs than startup-focused cap table tools. - Alternatives’ strengths: Carta and Pulley have more documented product ecosystems and publicly available support content; buyers may have clearer expectations for standard cap table features. DealsPlus vs broader private markets platforms (Dynamo, Juniper Square) - Potential strengths: A narrower focus on structure data correctness and transaction readiness could make DealsPlus complementary to CRM/IR platforms. - Alternatives’ strengths: Dynamo and Juniper Square offer broader suites covering CRM, deal management, investor reporting, and investor portals.

Market share and adoption trends

No independent market share data specific to investment structure management tools was identified in the reviewed sources. Procurement diligence should include customer references, confirmation of customer counts under NDA, and review of security documentation.

	DealsPlus	Carta	Intapp DealCloud
Starting Price	Not public (custom)	Not fully public; plan-based	Not public; enterprise sales
Best For	PE funds needing post-deal structure and portfolio-level ownership governance	Equity/cap table workflows; strong coverage in VC-backed ecosystem	Deal pipeline and relationship management with configurable workflows
Key Strength	Focus on structure data and audit logging for post-deal governance as described by the vendor	Large ecosystem and documented cap table workflows	Deep configurability and CRM/deal operations integration
Key Weakness	Limited independent review footprint and limited publicly documented security attestations; brand name ambiguity	Past concerns around certain liquidity features have raised governance questions for some buyers	Implementation complexity and cost; may require customization to treat structure data as a first-class object

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

DealsPlus vs cap table/equity platforms (Carta, Astrella, Pulley)

Potential strengths: If the product addresses multi-jurisdiction holding structures, portfolio-level structure charts, compliance, and audit-ready documentation, it may be more closely aligned to PE operational needs than startup-focused cap table tools.
Alternatives’ strengths: Carta and Pulley have more documented product ecosystems and publicly available support content; buyers may have clearer expectations for standard cap table features.

DealsPlus vs broader private markets platforms (Dynamo, Juniper Square)

Potential strengths: A narrower focus on structure data correctness and transaction readiness could make DealsPlus complementary to CRM/IR platforms.
Alternatives’ strengths: Dynamo and Juniper Square offer broader suites covering CRM, deal management, investor reporting, and investor portals.

Market share and adoption trends

	DealsPlus	Carta	Intapp DealCloud
Starting Price	Not public (custom)	Not fully public; plan-based	Not public; enterprise sales
Best For	PE funds needing post-deal structure and portfolio-level ownership governance	Equity/cap table workflows; strong coverage in VC-backed ecosystem	Deal pipeline and relationship management with configurable workflows
Key Strength	Focus on structure data and audit logging for post-deal governance as described by the vendor	Large ecosystem and documented cap table workflows	Deep configurability and CRM/deal operations integration
Key Weakness	Limited independent review footprint and limited publicly documented security attestations; brand name ambiguity	Past concerns around certain liquidity features have raised governance questions for some buyers	Implementation complexity and cost; may require customization to treat structure data as a first-class object