Reporting-only or a platform? Choosing CARF/DAC8 software that does more

What a reporting-only tool leaves on the table

A point solution files your CARF and DAC8 reports and stops. But the reconciled, per-user, per-jurisdiction dataset you built to file is the same dataset you need to withhold tax at source, to give retail users a tax centre, to track portfolio and treasury positions, and to satisfy an audit. Buy a tool for each and you integrate the same data four times and pay four vendors.

The case for one data layer

Reporting and withholding are the clearest example. In Austria, a domestic provider has to withhold 27.5% KESt and file CARF, and both run off the same classified transaction feed. Our tax withholding solution and our CARF and DAC8 reporting share one ingest, so you cover both from a single integration instead of standing up a second stack. Add a white-label tax centre for your retail users from the same data, and the compliance spend starts earning its keep on the product side too.

The cost gap is real

This isn't only an architecture argument. Multi-vendor reporting-only setups for a large exchange run into the high six and seven figures a year once you add withholding, retail tax, and audit tooling from separate providers. Kryptos is a flat fee that starts at $15,000 a year and covers the platform end to end. You can see the tiers on our pricing page.

How to choose

If all you'll ever need is a filing, a reporting-only tool is fine. If you also have to withhold, serve retail users, or answer an audit, weigh the platform. A practical test: ask each vendor what happens to the data after the report is filed. If the answer is "nothing," you're paying to build the same pipeline again for the next obligation. For where this fits a venue, see exchanges and custodians, and the EU's tax cooperation pages for the DAC8 baseline everyone is building against.