Key Takeaways
- ›EquiLend and IHS Markit Securities Finance lead this evaluation, with 4 further platforms assessed alongside them.
- ›EquiLend is aimed at large asset managers ($20B+ AUM) requiring comprehensive lending programs with extensive counterparty networks and complex regulatory requirements.
- ›Broadridge Securities Lending suits mid-market asset managers ($5-20B AUM) seeking modern, scalable platforms with strong regulatory compliance and reasonable implementation timelines.
- ›Trade Lifecycle Management carries the most weight in this evaluation, at 25% of the total.
- ›Watch for this: Avoid evaluating platforms solely on feature checklists.
- ›In the evaluation: Request proof-of-concept implementations with your actual lending inventory and transaction volumes.
Securities Lending Platforms for Asset Managers: Vendors Compared
6 platforms, assessed against the criteria in this guide. The positions are our opinion — here is how we evaluate.
| Vendor | Position | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| EquiLend | Leader | Large asset managers ($20B+ AUM) requiring comprehensive lending programs with extensive counterparty networks and complex regulatory requirements. |
| IHS Markit Securities Finance | Leader | Data-driven asset managers prioritizing pricing optimization and market intelligence integration within their lending operations. |
| Broadridge Securities Lending | Strong Contender | Mid-market asset managers ($5-20B AUM) seeking modern, scalable platforms with strong regulatory compliance and reasonable implementation timelines. |
| Pirum Systems | Strong Contender | European asset managers prioritizing operational efficiency and post-trade automation over advanced analytics and pricing optimization. |
| FIS Securities Finance Solutions | Strong Contender | Large institutional asset managers with complex legacy infrastructure requiring comprehensive platform integration and established vendor relationships. |
| Cloud9 Technologies SecLending | Emerging Contender | Emerging asset managers and family offices seeking rapid platform deployment with modern technology stack and predictable costs. |
Executive Summary
Securities lending represents $2.8 trillion in global assets under management, making platform efficiency and risk management critical to institutional alpha generation.
Securities lending platforms have evolved from back-office reconciliation systems into revenue-generating engines that institutional asset managers increasingly recognize as core to their operating models. The global securities lending market reached $2.8 trillion in lendable assets in 2025, with platforms processing over 45 million transactions annually across equity, fixed income, and alternative asset classes.
Modern platforms integrate real-time risk analytics, automated collateral management, and sophisticated pricing engines that enable asset managers to optimize lending yields while maintaining regulatory compliance across multiple jurisdictions. Leading institutions report improvements in lending revenue following platform modernization, driven primarily by enhanced price discovery and reduced settlement failures.
Technology selection has become strategically critical as regulatory requirements tighten and institutional investors demand greater transparency into lending operations. Platform capabilities around beneficial ownership reporting, SFTR compliance, and real-time exposure monitoring now directly impact an asset manager's ability to participate in high-yield lending opportunities while maintaining fiduciary standards.
Why Securities Lending Platforms Matter Now
Securities lending has transitioned from an ancillary revenue stream to a strategic necessity for institutional asset managers facing compressed management fees and increasingly sophisticated investor demands for alpha generation. The regulatory landscape has fundamentally shifted with SFTR in Europe, enhanced beneficial ownership requirements globally, and emerging ESG considerations that require real-time monitoring of lending activities across portfolios.
Platform modernization directly impacts three critical business outcomes: revenue optimization through enhanced price discovery and automated decision-making, risk mitigation through real-time exposure monitoring and collateral optimization, and operational efficiency through straight-through processing and reduced settlement failures. Asset managers utilizing advanced platforms report higher lending yields compared to those relying on manual processes or legacy systems.
The competitive landscape has intensified as beneficial owners become more sophisticated in their lending strategies, demanding platforms that can support complex structures including triparty arrangements, cross-border transactions, and alternative asset lending. Institutions without robust platform capabilities increasingly find themselves excluded from high-yield opportunities and face operational risks that threaten their lending programs' viability.
Build vs. Buy Analysis
The decision to build versus buy securities lending platforms has shifted decisively toward commercial solutions due to regulatory complexity, integration requirements, and the specialized expertise required for modern lending operations. Internal development timelines typically extend 24-36 months with costs ranging from $15-30 million for comprehensive platforms, while commercial implementations average 12-18 months at $3-8 million total cost of ownership.
Build considerations center on highly specialized requirements such as proprietary risk models, unique collateral arrangements, or integration with legacy systems that commercial vendors cannot accommodate. However, the regulatory burden—including SFTR reporting, beneficial ownership tracking, and cross-border compliance—requires ongoing development resources that most institutions cannot sustain cost-effectively.
| Dimension | Build In-House | Buy Commercial |
|---|---|---|
| Development Timeline | 24-36 months | 12-18 months |
| Initial Investment | $15-30M | $3-8M |
| Regulatory Compliance | Full internal responsibility | Vendor-managed updates |
| Integration Complexity | Custom APIs required | Pre-built connectors |
| Risk Model Sophistication | Fully customizable | Limited customization |
| Ongoing Maintenance | $3-5M annually | $500K-1.2M annually |
| Talent Requirements | 15-25 specialists | 3-5 administrators |
Key Capabilities & Evaluation Criteria
Securities lending platform evaluation requires assessment across six critical capability domains that directly impact revenue generation, risk management, and operational efficiency. Platform selection should prioritize real-time processing capabilities, regulatory compliance automation, and integration flexibility, as these factors most significantly impact long-term platform viability and business outcomes.
| Capability Domain | Weight | What to Evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Trade Lifecycle Management | 25% | Real-time settlement, automated recalls, mark-to-market processing, corporate action handling |
| Risk & Collateral Management | 20% | Real-time exposure monitoring, collateral optimization algorithms, margin call automation, stress testing |
| Pricing & Revenue Optimization | 18% | Dynamic rate setting, yield curve integration, competitive benchmarking, revenue attribution |
| Regulatory & Compliance | 15% | SFTR reporting, beneficial ownership tracking, cross-border compliance, audit trail completeness |
| Integration & Connectivity | 12% | OMS/EMS connectivity, custodian integration, market data feeds, third-party service connectivity |
| Analytics & Reporting | 10% | Portfolio-level analytics, performance attribution, client reporting, regulatory reporting automation |
Vendor Landscape
The securities lending platform market has consolidated around several established players with distinct strengths and target markets. Enterprise-grade solutions dominate the $10B+ AUM segment, while emerging platforms target mid-market asset managers with cloud-native architectures and subscription pricing models. Vendor selection should align with your institution's AUM, lending complexity, and technology infrastructure maturity.
EquiLend
LeaderIHS Markit Securities Finance
LeaderBroadridge Securities Lending
Strong ContenderPirum Systems
Strong ContenderFIS Securities Finance Solutions
Strong ContenderCloud9 Technologies SecLending
Emerging ContenderPricing & Total Cost of Ownership
Securities lending platform pricing has evolved from perpetual license models to subscription-based structures that align costs with business outcomes. Transaction-based pricing dominates the market, with fees ranging from $0.50-3.00 per transaction depending on complexity and volume commitments. Implementation costs typically represent a large share of first-year total cost of ownership, with ongoing maintenance and support comprising the majority of years 2-3 expenses.
Total cost of ownership analysis should incorporate hidden costs including data feeds, third-party integrations, compliance monitoring, and internal resource allocation for platform management. Leading platforms justify premium pricing through revenue optimization that typically exceeds platform costs for active lending programs.
| Vendor | License Model | Entry Price | Enterprise Price | Key Cost Drivers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EquiLend | Transaction + SaaS | $500K | $2.5M+ | Transaction volume, participant network access, data feeds |
| IHS Markit | SaaS + Data | $400K | $1.8M | User count, data packages, analytics modules |
| Broadridge | SaaS | $300K | $1.2M | AUM tiers, transaction volume, integration complexity |
| Pirum Systems | Transaction-based | $250K | $900K | Transaction fees, settlement volumes, geographic coverage |
| FIS SecFinance | Perpetual + Maintenance | $600K | $2.0M | Module licensing, maintenance fees, professional services |
| Cloud9 SecLending | SaaS | $180K | $600K | User subscriptions, transaction limits, premium features |
Implementation Roadmap
Securities lending platform implementations require careful orchestration across technology, operations, and compliance teams to ensure successful deployment without disrupting existing lending operations. Phased approaches minimize risk while enabling gradual migration from legacy systems, with parallel processing typically required for 2-3 months to validate platform accuracy and performance.
Current state analysis, data mapping, integration requirements definition, compliance gap analysis, and infrastructure planning. Establish project governance and vendor relationship management protocols.
Platform installation, network configuration, security implementation, OMS/EMS connectivity, custodian integration, and market data feed establishment. Complete user acceptance testing protocols.
Historical data migration, configuration validation, end-to-end testing, regulatory reporting verification, and performance optimization. Parallel processing with legacy systems begins.
User training completion, operational procedure documentation, go-live preparation, cutover execution, and post-implementation monitoring. Legacy system decommissioning planning.
Performance tuning, advanced feature activation, additional asset class enablement, enhanced reporting deployment, and continuous improvement process establishment.
Selection Checklist & RFP Questions
Use this comprehensive checklist to evaluate securities lending platforms and ensure thorough assessment of capabilities, costs, and implementation requirements. Weight each item according to your institution's specific priorities and risk tolerance.
Related Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the typical implementation timeline for securities lending platforms?
Securities lending platform implementations typically take 12-18 months, with 3 months for assessment and design, 4 months for infrastructure setup, 4 months for data migration and testing, and 2-3 months for training and deployment. Complex integrations or legacy system migrations may extend timelines to 20-24 months.
How much do securities lending platforms cost for mid-market asset managers?
Mid-market asset managers ($5-20B AUM) typically pay $300K-$1.2M annually for securities lending platforms, with implementation costs of $500K-$2M. Transaction-based pricing ranges from $0.50-$3.00 per trade, while SaaS models charge based on AUM tiers and user counts.
What are the most important integration requirements for securities lending platforms?
Critical integrations include OMS/EMS connectivity for trade capture, portfolio management system integration for position data, custodian connectivity for settlement processing, market data feeds for pricing, and accounting system integration for P&L attribution and regulatory reporting.
How do securities lending platforms help with regulatory compliance?
Modern platforms automate SFTR reporting, beneficial ownership tracking, cross-border compliance monitoring, and audit trail maintenance. They provide pre-built regulatory reports, real-time compliance monitoring, and automated alerts for regulatory breaches or exposure limits.
Should asset managers build or buy securities lending platforms?
Buy commercial platforms unless you have $50B+ AUM and dedicated technology teams. Commercial platforms offer faster implementation (12-18 vs 24-36 months), lower costs ($3-8M vs $15-30M), and vendor-managed regulatory updates that most institutions cannot maintain cost-effectively.
How We Evaluate
Bars are scaled to the heaviest criterion. The percentages are the real weights and add up to 100%.
We write these guides for people running a software selection. This one covers 6 platforms and should save you weeks of research, but it will not replace your own reference calls and a proof of concept.
We assess vendors from their published product documentation and from what practitioners report about running them. The positions and scores here are our opinion. No vendor supplied them and nobody audited them. Use them to build a shortlist, then go and test it yourself.
The criteria weights are ours as well. We chose them for this category and publish them so you can see what we valued, and weight things differently if your situation calls for it.
No vendor pays to appear in this guide or to be described the way it is. Spotlight placements alongside our guides are paid and labeled Sponsored, and they change nothing about the evaluation.
Last reviewed August 2026. Enterprise software moves quickly and pricing is negotiated rather than listed, so parts of this will age. If we have something wrong, tell us and we will fix it. That goes double if you work for a vendor we cover.