Gresham vs AutoRek for cash, nostro, GL and regulatory reconciliation software at banks

The verdict workload by workload

Gresham vs AutoRek for cash and nostro reconciliation

AutoRek is usually the stronger of the two here. Cash is where the product started, and its own numbers are cash numbers: a largest deployment of 2.4 billion transactions and, by its account, a quarter of all cash transactions at UK banks. Statement to ledger matching with many to one grouping, charges and timing rules is everyday work for it.

Gresham Control handles cash and nostro too. It reads SWIFT messages, ISO 20022 and CSV, and many of its clients reconcile cash alongside positions. The difference is emphasis and price. Control is built and priced to onboard a stream of new trade and position feeds, so a bank that only needs MT940 or camt.053 against a nostro ledger tends to pay for capability it does not use. If nostro is the whole brief, compare both against dedicated nostro reconciliation software before you sign.

Gresham vs AutoRek for general ledger reconciliation

The same split holds. AutoRek treats the general ledger as the thing being controlled: subledger to GL, bank to GL and suspense accounts sit inside a financial control framework with sign-off. Gresham treats the GL as one more data set to be proven consistent with others, which is the right model when the ledger is fed by trading systems.

Neither is a close management product. If the requirement is account certification across the whole balance sheet with preparer and reviewer sign-off, BlackLine and Trintech are built for that. If it is daily proof of clearing and settlement GLs at a bank, that is a different and cheaper job, covered on general ledger reconciliation software.

Gresham vs AutoRek for hedge fund reconciliation

Gresham is usually the stronger choice for hedge funds and their administrators today. It markets Control directly to hedge funds and fund administrators and says its investment management application has more than 100 active clients, so trade, position and cash breaks across prime brokers and custodians are familiar ground. Its published results are about onboarding speed: a new reconciliation in three or four hours, where it used to take days.

AutoRek is newer to that market in the US. The Miami office it opened in June 2026 was staffed to sell to hedge funds and alternative managers, and it won the Waters buy-side reconciliation award in 2025, so the gap is closing. It is the better fit where fund accounting controls or client money rules drive the work more than feed volume does.

Gresham vs AutoRek for derivatives and capital markets

For OTC derivative trades, positions and collateral, Gresham publishes more references and onboards broker and clearing house feeds faster. AutoRek can reconcile derivatives data, but its published focus is cash, client money and regulatory reconciliations. If derivatives are the main workload, put Duco on the list next to Gresham and treat AutoRek as the challenger that must show a reference at a firm your size. The cloud-only and document-heavy options are compared in Duco alternatives and Xceptor alternatives. The second pairing has its own page, AutoRek vs Duco.

Gresham vs AutoRek for regulatory compliance automation

AutoRek is usually the better fit. UK client money and client assets (CASS), safeguarding for payments and e-money firms, and reporting under regimes such as EMIR and MiFID II are what its reputation rests on, and it sells RegToolKit for regulatory reporting. Those reconciliations are where it is hardest to replace.

Gresham supports regulatory reporting from the other side. Control proves that trade and position data agree across systems before a report is filed; it does not produce the client money calculation. US buyers should notice what is missing from both: neither markets Regulation E dispute timing, Nacha return windows or Fed account balancing, because neither was designed around a US depository institution.

Deployment, ownership and what a renewal looks like

Gresham offers the widest choice of deployment in this category: SaaS, on premise, hybrid or a managed service. That matters if your institution has a hosting mandate. It also changed hands. STG completed a £146.7 million take-private in July 2024, merged Gresham with Alveo the same month, and in January 2026 the combined company bought S&P Global's enterprise data management business. It is now positioned as enterprise data automation for financial markets, a broader pitch than reconciliation.

AutoRek offers private cloud, a SaaS product called Grath and an embedded product called Topa. It has been an independent Glasgow company for more than 30 years and names Aegon, Royal London, eToro and ClearBank among its customers. Third-party reviews repeatedly mention a steep learning curve and a substantial setup project, so ask for the implementation plan and day rate in writing, not only the license.

Pricing for Gresham, AutoRek and a bank-side option

Neither vendor publishes a price, and the purchasing benchmarks we checked list no verified contract for either. Both quote on reconciliation count, data volume, deployment and modules, with implementation scoped separately. The only fair comparison is two written quotes on your own volumes, with the same three year term and the same list of reconciliations. If your institution runs sourcing through procurement software, load both quotes there with identical line items, because the difference usually hides in implementation days and per-feed charges.

BankAutomation publishes its plans. Operations is $1,200 a month for 250,000 matched items and three sources. Platform is $3,900 a month for 2,000,000 items, unlimited sources, SSO and maker-checker approvals. Institution is $9,500 a month, and Enterprise is $14,900 a month for private or VPC deployment. Annual billing halves each monthly rate, and every limit is on the pricing page. It is not a like for like replacement for either product on securities or client money. It is the cheaper home for daily cash settlement.

Where a US bank or credit union fits

A US community or regional bank asking this question usually has a small capital markets workload and a large daily settlement one: ACH against FedACH windows, debit card and ATM networks, the Fed account, correspondents and suspense. Both Gresham and AutoRek can be configured for that. Neither arrives with it, and both are priced for something harder.

The pattern that costs least is a split. Keep or buy Gresham or AutoRek for securities, client money or regulatory work if you have it, and run settlement accounts on a platform built for them: ACH reconciliation software, Federal Reserve account reconciliation software and cash reconciliation software describe that work account by account. Institutions on a Jack Henry or Fiserv core can do it from the report files they already save, with no core interface.

How to choose in four steps

Questions buyers ask

Is Gresham or AutoRek better for reconciliation?

Neither is better across the board. AutoRek is usually stronger for cash, nostro, general ledger, client money and regulatory reconciliations. Gresham Control is usually stronger for hedge fund, derivatives and other trade and position data with many changing feeds. Pick by your largest group of reconciliations and confirm with a reference in your segment.

What are the key differences between AutoRek and Gresham?

The key differences are design center and deployment. AutoRek is built around financial control and regulated cash reconciliations and deploys as private cloud, SaaS or embedded. Gresham is built around post-trade data integrity and deploys as SaaS, on premise, hybrid or managed service. Gresham has been owned by STG since July 2024; AutoRek is an independent Glasgow company.

How much do Gresham and AutoRek cost?

Both are quote only, with no published price list and no verified public contract benchmark for either. Quotes depend on reconciliation count, data volume, deployment model and modules, with implementation charged separately. For daily bank settlement work, BankAutomation publishes plans from $1,200 a month.

Which is better for a US bank, Gresham or AutoRek?

For a US bank with a capital markets or custody arm, Gresham fits trade and position data and AutoRek fits cash and regulated reconciliations. For ACH, card, Fed and core settlement accounts, neither publishes US references, so most banks pair one of them with a bank-side platform or use only the latter. Our reconciliation software comparison for banks lists 16 options with prices.

What are the alternatives to both?

Duco and SmartStream for trade and securities data, Xceptor where documents sit beside reconciliation, FIS Data Integrity Manager for very large estates, and ReconArt, Trintech and BankAutomation for bank-side settlement and close work. Each vendor has its own page: Gresham reconciliation alternatives and AutoRek alternatives.

See the matching before you shortlist

The resolver at the top of this page runs BankAutomation's matcher on sample USD card settlement data: one net settlement grouped to its postings, fees cleared by rule, breaks classified and aged. If that is the slice of the Gresham or AutoRek quote you are pricing, run your own file through the demo and compare the result with the published plans.