Step 1
Write the job in one sentence.
We want [person or role] to use AI to [specific task] with [permitted information], producing [output] that [named person] reviews before [next action].
If you cannot complete that sentence, pause the purchase. Define the process before comparing products.
| Question | Your answer |
|---|---|
| What exact task should become easier? | |
| Who will use the tool? | |
| What information will go into it? | |
| What should come out? | |
| Who reviews the output? | |
| What happens after review? | |
| How will you know it helped? | |
| What would a bad result cost in time, rework, or client impact? |
Step 2
Check the boundary before the demo.
A demo shows what a tool can do. It rarely settles whether your firm should use it in a particular way.
- Will the tool receive client information, credentials, private firm material, or regulated records?
- Could its output reach a client, enter a record, influence advice, or trigger an action?
- What do the current vendor terms say about retention, model training, subprocessors, access, and deletion?
- Does the firm need user permissions, an audit trail, approved integrations, or administrative controls?
- Who inside or outside the firm must review the proposed use?
Assign an owner and resolve it before moving real information into the tool. Use synthetic test data by default. If you plan to use redacted or real firm information, follow the firm's approved process for that exact tool and use case; this worksheet cannot determine whether the data is safe to submit.
This worksheet does not provide legal, compliance, investment, tax, accounting, or cybersecurity advice.
Step 3
Keep the shortlist small.
Keep the first comparison small. Start with the current process and one or two realistic alternatives; add another only when it represents a meaningfully different approach.
| Candidate | Why it made the shortlist | Cost | Setup and training | Open boundary questions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current process / no purchase | ||||
| Candidate 1 | ||||
| Candidate 2 |
Step 4
Run the same small trial.
Test each candidate on enough representative cases to expose normal work and likely failure modes. Three cases can be a practical starting point: one easy, one normal, and one awkward.
| Trial case | Expected output | Tool result | Editing needed | Pass, fail, or unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | ||||
| Normal | ||||
| Awkward |
Use the ratings as notes, not as an automatic winner: 0 for a miss, 1 for heavy correction, 2 for usable with normal review, 3 for a strong fit, and U for unknown. Mark non-negotiable requirements separately; a failure there can rule out a tool regardless of its total.
| Decision factor | Current process | Candidate 1 | Candidate 2 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Handles the defined task | ||||
| Produces usable output consistently | ||||
| Makes errors easy to catch | ||||
| Fits the approved data path | ||||
| Has the needed access and admin controls | ||||
| Fits current systems | ||||
| Requires reasonable editing and training | ||||
| Cost is justified by actual use | ||||
| The firm can stop or switch |
Step 5
Make the decision in writing.
- Buy: [tool] for [task] because [trial evidence]. [Owner] will review its use after [date or volume].
- Keep: The new options did not improve [result] enough to justify [cost or effort].
- Narrow: Run another test after [unknown] is resolved by [owner].
- Stop: The task, data path, reviewer, or success measure is still unclear.
Pattern guide
A sensible place to start
| Situation | Starting point |
|---|---|
| Occasional drafting, summarizing, or research with permitted information | A general AI assistant may be enough. Test output quality and source handling. |
| A repeated task already lives inside current software | Test that product's AI feature before adding another vendor. |
| A narrow workflow needs structured records or handoffs | Purpose-built software may fit better than a general chat tool. |
| A valuable process crosses several systems | Define the process first. A scoped consultant or implementation may be warranted. |
| The use case, data path, or reviewer is unclear | Do not buy yet. Resolve the operating question first. |
Questions
Before the final choice
Which AI tool is best for financial advisors?
There is no useful universal answer. The right choice depends on the task, information involved, controls, current software, review process, and amount of editing the firm will accept.
Can I test with real client information?
This worksheet cannot approve that. Use synthetic test data by default. If you plan to use redacted or real firm information, follow the firm's approved process for that exact tool and use case.
Should the lowest-priced tool win?
Only if it does the job. Include setup, review, correction, training, integration, and switching effort in the comparison.
Can AI Office Hours approve a tool for my firm?
No. Office Hours can help one named RIA owner, financial advisor, or financial planner compare options and work through tradeoffs. The member and the appropriate people at the firm make the decision.