Discover which Gato modules are best suited for your firm's needs.
Describe your firm and needs—I'll recommend the right modules
Hi! I'm the Gato Solution Advisor. Tell me about your firm type and what you're looking for, and I'll recommend the best Gato modules for your needs.
Select your firm type to see recommended Gato modules.
Trading technology decisions are rarely about features in isolation, they are about which obligations your entity carries and where the operational bottleneck actually sits. A self-clearing broker-dealer, a proprietary trading firm scaling venue coverage, a hedge fund optimising execution quality, and a fintech platform embedding brokerage all need different combinations of connectivity, risk, reporting, and onboarding.
This page maps firm type and problem statement to specific Gato modules so you can see the shape of a deployment before any sales conversation. Each recommendation lists what the module does, which firm types it was built for, and how it connects to the rest of the trade lifecycle, from order capture and pre-trade risk through reconciliation, corporate actions, and CAT or CAIS reporting.
Because the platform is modular, recommendations are a starting point rather than a package. Firms commonly deploy one module, prove it in production, then extend, and the questions below cover how that plays out in practice.
Those starting points come from what firms actually replace first, not from packaging. An introducing broker-dealer rarely has a corporate actions problem on day one, but almost always has a connectivity estate that has grown session by session and a CAT error rate nobody can attribute to a cause. A self-clearing firm has the opposite profile: connectivity is settled, and the cost sits in the daily reconciliation between clearing, bank, and back-office records.
The second question is sequencing. Because every module reads the same order, account, and transaction record, adding a second one is setup work rather than a new integration project. That is what lets a firm prove one module in production, measure the result, and extend on a timeline set by its own budget cycle instead of a vendor's.
If your situation does not match a profile below, the pattern is usually still recognisable: describe the operational bottleneck and the obligations your entity carries, and the shape of the deployment follows from those two facts.
Recommendations are driven by firm type and the operational problem you select, not by product popularity.
A self-clearing broker-dealer with market-access obligations gets a different starting stack than a multi-strategy hedge fund focused on execution quality.
Many do. Choose the profile that matches the regulated entity carrying the obligation, then review the adjacent module lists, because the platform is modular you can combine recommendations without duplicating infrastructure.
Yes. The finder returns module-level detail, including what each module does and which firm types it is built for, so you can evaluate fit before booking a demo.
Asset classes traded, venues and clearing relationships, current OMS or EMS, reporting obligations (CAT, CAIS, 15c3-5, 4210), and daily order volumes. That is enough to scope a phased rollout.
Whichever obligation is closest to failing.
Broker-dealers with market-access exposure typically start with pre-trade risk, firms carrying reporting findings start with CAT and CAIS, and firms scaling order flow start with connectivity and order management before extending across the suite.
Yes, and it is the usual pattern.
Order flow, risk decisions, or reported events can be run in parallel and compared against the existing system before anything is cut over, which turns the decision into a data comparison instead of a leap of faith.
A first module in UAT with simulated venues, a conformance pass on production-shaped sessions, a limited production window on a subset of flow, then expansion by desk, asset class, or entity.
Each phase keeps a rollback path to the existing workflow.