Feasly, EstateMaster, ARGUS Developer & Aprao Compared

Site drawings, measuring tools, material samples and a closed laptop on a planning desk. — A pro forma connects the physical proposal to its financial assumptions.

What to take into your next appraisal

Separate financial coverage from the experience of changing and reviewing a model.
Compare the precise product, module and access level you would buy.
Feasly’s ChatGPT connection is a private preview, with public directory availability still pending.

Start with the job your team needs to do

This comparison brings together the linked vendor product information and Feasly’s available workflows. It is not an independent benchmark. Compare the edition, access and commercial terms you would use, and ask each provider to demonstrate the methods your project needs.

A dated shortlist guide, not a ranking or an assertion that any product lacks unlisted capabilities.
Product	Documented emphasis	What to evaluate
Feasly	A Calculation Engine, shared modelling workspace, supported imports and reviewed AI workflows. ChatGPT is in private preview.	Can the same case move from your existing work to a useful new scenario, with assumptions and results you can inspect?
ARGUS EstateMaster	Spreadsheet-style flexibility, feasibility and development monitoring, with Excel and other integration modules.	Which custom cells, links, reporting conventions and live-project processes does your team depend on?
ARGUS Developer	Structured development appraisals, stages and project finance. Snapshot adds monitoring and actuals.	Does your phasing, funding and reporting brief fit the licensed configuration?
Aprao	Online development pro formas, land value, scenario comparison and branded reports. MCP connectivity is in development.	How well does the appraisal, finance setup and reporting workflow fit the projects you assess?

Sources: Altus Group: ARGUS EstateMaster product information and FAQ; Altus Group: ARGUS Developer product information and FAQ; Aprao: Aprao product scope and AI integration status; Feasly: Feasly Calculation Engine; Feasly: Feasly in ChatGPT: private preview

Why put Feasly on the shortlist?

Choose to evaluate Feasly when the financial model needs to remain useful as the assignment changes. The buying argument is a connected workflow: begin with a supported case, inspect its assumptions, investigate a different programme or cost, and keep the resulting scenario with the project.

There is specific evidence behind that argument. Our published UK appraisal gives readers explicit inputs, monthly outputs and five calculation cases. The private ChatGPT integration has also been tested opening real Feasly workspace projects and saving changes and separate scenarios back to them. These prove defined workflows; they do not establish that Feasly is faster, more accurate or broader than every alternative.

A sensible evaluation asks whether those workflows reduce reconstruction for your team. If your current software already serves the assignment well, a change should earn its place by improving an actual task.

Sources: Feasly: A worked UK development appraisal with downloadable calculations; Feasly: Financial modelling workspace; Feasly: Feasly in ChatGPT: private preview

Use one brief and compare the decisions it supports

Give each demonstration the same site, area basis, currency, cost scope, timing and sales or income assumptions. Keep project profit, funding movements and investor returns separate. Agree definitions before comparing headline numbers.

Our fictional UK case can help structure an initial discussion, but it is all-equity and before corporation tax. It cannot stand in for a test of debt, covenants or a joint venture. Add a funded case using your actual term sheet when those requirements matter.

Base: reconcile the budget and monthly receipts and payments.
Delay: move collections and identify changes to peak capital and the timing of returns.
Funding: test eligible costs, facility limits, fees, draw priority and repayment using the same terms.
Review: save an alternative, retain Base and let a colleague explain what changed.
Continuity: reopen the case in the places you actually work and verify that the saved state is the same.

Sources: Feasly: A worked UK development appraisal with downloadable calculations

Judge AI by the work it completes

A chat interface alone is not a sufficient reason to change financial software. Ask it to locate the right saved model, identify assumptions, make an authorised change, recalculate and preserve the result. Then inspect that result in the underlying application.

Bring your Feasly financial work into ChatGPT. Open a saved project, work on a development or investment model, and save scenarios to the same Feasly workspace.

Available by invitation during private preview. Feasly has been submitted for review in the ChatGPT directory; public installation is not yet available. A Feasly sign-in is required for saved projects.

Aprao also describes an MCP integration under development. These are different availability statements, not evidence of a universal AI lead. Ask each supplier to demonstrate the particular workflow and account setup you would receive.

Sources: Feasly: Feasly in ChatGPT: private preview; Aprao: Aprao product scope and AI integration status

Compare the whole adoption cost

Ask for a dated offer covering the relevant modules, users, setup, training, support, imports, integrations and exit arrangements. A software fee alone does not tell you what it costs to move a team and its existing work.

For Feasly, establish current access, supported methods and any preview enrolment before committing. The public calculators are useful for a defined early screen; they are not the full workspace or a promise of unrestricted engine access.

Sources: Feasly: Supported file workflows and current limits; Feasly: Feasly Calculation Engine