Summary: A traditional family office provides dedicated internal staff. Centry can provide comparable capability: tax, wealth, implementation, monitoring, using a combination of Wealth Engineers, in-house software and specialist partners, typically without the headcount cost of building a full team.
How they compare
| Traditional family office | Centry | |
|---|---|---|
| Staffing | Full in-house team (CEO, CFO, PA, etc.) | Shared Wealth Engineers + software |
| Cost | Salaries, office and overhead, typically a high fixed cost | Fee-based; typically a lower fixed cost than a full in-house team |
| Technology | Often manual; spreadsheet-driven | Human-led; purpose-built software that organises, monitors and surfaces gaps |
| Tax integration | Depends on team composition | Tax and wealth reviewed together |
| Scalability | Needs more staff as complexity grows | Software scales; human judgement stays focused |
| Continuity | Risk if key staff leave | Maintained fact base persists across team changes |
Where a traditional family office may be the better fit
A traditional family office may be the better fit where the family has UHNW-scale complexity, wants dedicated full-time staff physically present, or has governance needs that require an internal chief of staff or family CEO role.
Where Centry may be the better fit
Centry may be the better fit where the family wants the capability of a family office: tax, wealth, implementation, monitoring, without the cost, recruitment and management burden of building an in-house team. Centry is also well suited as a bridge before a family commits to building internal infrastructure.
Questions to consider
- Is the cost of dedicated in-house staff proportionate to your current complexity?
- Would software-supported operations reduce manual effort and improve coverage?
- What happens to continuity and institutional memory if key staff leave?
Important note
Website content is general information only. Personal tax advice requires a client engagement, review of the relevant facts and documents, and appropriate jurisdiction-specific analysis. This comparison is general information only and is framed around model fit. It is not tax, legal, investment or financial advice and does not claim that one model is best for every client.