For a startup that mainly needs a cap table, early grants and fundraising models, Cake Equity offers a simpler, publicly priced route. Cake’s pricing lists a free plan for five stakeholders, Build at $1,000 annually for 25, and Team at $2,750 annually for 40; Team includes two 409A valuations a year, while a valuation can be added to another annual plan for $1,500. Those prices make Cake easier to budget, but a lower published price does not establish that it will beat every Carta quote.
Carta is the stronger fit when equity administration must connect to HRIS and payroll systems or extend into transfer-agent transactions and accounting reports. Carta’s plan matrix places those integrations in its core offering, 409A valuations in Grow, and ASC 718 reporting in Scale; it also describes transfer-agent functions for U.S. companies. Its paid price depends on the package, stakeholder count and add-ons, so a comparison of annual bills requires a quote. The practical choice is the least expensive tier that covers the company’s actual equity work.
The free-tier boundary changes the calculation
Carta’s Launch terms describe a free plan for startups with under 25 stakeholders and less than $1 million raised, and direct companies that need a 409A valuation toward an upgrade. That makes Carta potentially cheaper than Cake for an eligible startup with more stakeholders than Cake’s free allowance. An early cap table does not necessarily need a paid subscription from either company.
There is a boundary worth checking before relying on the free plan: Carta’s plan matrix describes Launch as covering up to 25 stakeholders, while its Launch terms say under 25. A company at exactly that count should confirm eligibility. Funding raised matters independently of headcount, and the need for a valuation can change the relevant tier even when the ownership list remains small.
Three representative annual budgets
These illustrative cap tables use the published plan prices and the stricter Launch eligibility wording. They compare subscription and stated valuation charges, not negotiated contracts or every optional service.
- Five stakeholders, no valuation: Cake Free costs $0, and Carta Launch also costs $0 if the company meets its funding condition. The choice turns on the workflows the founders expect to use, rather than a subscription saving.
- Twenty-four stakeholders, basic ownership records: Cake Build costs $1,000 annually. Carta Launch remains $0 if the startup meets its funding condition and does not need a valuation. If it needs one Cake valuation, Build plus the stated add-on totals $2,500; Team costs $2,750 and includes two valuations a year. Carta’s valuation path requires a paid-plan quote.
- Forty stakeholders, employee awards and recurring valuations: Cake Team costs $2,750 annually at its included stakeholder count. Carta Grow includes valuations, but its annual price requires a quote. If the company also needs stock-based compensation reports, Cake Pro and Carta Scale become the relevant plans, and neither has a published total price.
The examples show why stakeholder count is only one input. Cake counts shareholders, option holders, note holders, RSU and RSA holders, and warrant holders as stakeholders. A company close to a plan limit should count all of those groups, then compare offers at the same headcount, valuation frequency and reporting scope. Otherwise, two attractive base prices can describe different services.
Where the added depth matters
Cake Build covers cap-table management, SAFEs and convertible notes, shareholder vesting, templated option grants and fundraising modeling. Team adds incentive-plan tools, an options exercise flow and the included valuations. Pro is the tier for international option pools, Rule 701 tracking, stock-based compensation reporting and audit-ready ownership reports, including ownership percentages at a point in time. A startup whose main task is maintaining records and preparing a round may have little reason to buy that reporting depth.
Carta’s core offering combines ownership records, securities issuance, exercises and repurchases with SAFE modeling and HRIS and payroll integration. Build adds priced-round modeling and deal-closing tools; Grow adds valuations and their audit support. Scale adds ASC 718 and IFRS financial reporting, Rule 701 management and exit modeling. For a finance team handling frequent employee changes, grants and audit requests, those connections and reports can reduce separate administrative work.
The transfer-agent distinction is narrower than a claim that only Carta can record transfers. Cake lists transfers and repurchases among its cap-table functions. Carta also describes acting as an SEC-registered transfer agent for U.S. companies, including online exercises, repurchases and share transfers. Companies that need that intermediary role should assess it separately from ordinary ownership tracking. Likewise, an investor cap-table export does not replace a stock-based compensation report for an audit.
What review scores add to the comparison
G2’s June 2026 review-data analysis gives Cake and Carta cap-table functionality scores of 94% and 91%, dashboard scores of 93% and 89%, and platform-search scores of 92% and 83%, respectively; it reports an 89% score for Carta’s 409A feature. These are review-derived feature ratings, not a controlled accuracy test or a measure of what each subscription includes.
The feedback gives Cake an edge in finding and understanding everyday ownership records. It also describes Carta’s broader equity lifecycle and connections to HR and payroll systems, while noting that granular reports can take longer to locate in complex structures. Cake’s lower tiers receive criticism for narrower legal-template access, and some reviewers describe delays in reaching live support. Those observations make usability part of the choice, but the purchased tier still determines which tasks the platform can handle.
Migration is a records problem
Cake’s Carta export guide calls for cap-table, vesting and stakeholder reports, with signed agreements, board consents and earlier 409A reports downloaded separately; it states that the rebuilt cap table is available for review before payment. A current ownership percentage alone cannot show whether a historical grant, exercise price or vesting schedule survived a move. The securities ledger and its supporting records have to reconcile.
Cake includes human-reviewed migration, which can reduce the work of rebuilding a cap table. The company still needs to check the result against its legal records before treating the new platform as authoritative. That matters most after multiple rounds, SAFE conversions or employee exercises, when a clean-looking present-day total can conceal a missing transaction in the history.
Which platform fits the company?
Cake Build or Team is a credible value choice when its published scope covers the company’s grants, valuations and reporting needs. Carta Launch may have the lowest bill for an eligible early startup; Carta’s paid tiers become more compelling as payroll connections, transfer-agent services and formal reporting enter the workflow. For a company approaching an audit or a complex securities transaction, compare Cake Pro with the appropriate Carta tier using quotes for the same stakeholders and services. That is where the price of simplicity can be weighed against the work each platform would otherwise leave to the finance team.
Also read:
