BILL is shutting down Finmark on April 1, 2026. If you’re one of the thousands of founders who used it to build their financial model, you need a migration plan in the next two months.
But the bigger story isn’t about one product. It’s about what’s happening to an entire category of tools that startups depend on.
What Finmark was
Finmark was one of the few financial modeling tools built specifically for startups and priced so early-stage companies could actually afford it. At $50/month, it gave founders a structured way to build projections, model revenue, and track burn rate without wrestling with spreadsheet formulas.
It did a lot of things well. The onboarding walked founders through the basics. The integrations pulled in actual financial data. The interface made it possible for non-finance founders to build a credible financial model. For many first-time founders, Finmark was their introduction to thinking about their business in financial terms.
BILL acquired Finmark in 2022. The April 2026 shutdown means the product will have been under BILL’s ownership for about four years — a reminder that acquisition doesn’t always mean continuation.
A pattern, not an anomaly
Finmark isn’t the first startup financial modeling tool to disappear. The pattern is striking.
Causal was acquired by Lucanet in October 2024. Lucanet is a European enterprise FP&A (financial planning and analysis) company. Causal’s startup-focused product was absorbed into an enterprise planning suite. If you’re a 10-person startup, Lucanet isn’t built for you.
Pry was acquired by Brex for $90M in April 2022. It still exists in some form, but it’s now part of Brex’s banking product. To use it, you need a Brex account. It’s no longer an independent financial modeling tool — it’s a feature inside a banking relationship.
Now Finmark. Three of the most prominent startup-specific financial modeling tools, all removed from the independent market within a few years of each other.
Why this matters
The gap left by these tools is real. Here are the options a startup founder faces today.
Spreadsheets. Free and flexible, but fragile. No separation between assumptions and calculations, no built-in scenario modeling, no education for founders who don’t have a finance background. Every startup that goes back to spreadsheets will spend time debugging formulas instead of making decisions.
Enterprise FP&A tools. Products like Anaplan, Adaptive Planning, and Pigment are built for companies with dedicated finance teams and budgets to match. Pricing starts at $10K-$25K per year and scales from there. The data models assume you have departments, cost centers, and an ERP system. A seed-stage startup doesn’t need any of that.
Generic modeling tools. General-purpose tools can technically model anything, but they don’t understand startup-specific concepts. They don’t know what a SAFE (a type of investment agreement that converts to equity later) is. They can’t generate a cap table (the ownership breakdown of your company). You end up building the startup logic yourself — at which point you’re back to a more expensive spreadsheet.
None of these options serve the startup-specific use case that Finmark, Causal, and Pry were built for.
What to look for in an alternative
If you’re migrating from Finmark — or just realizing you need something better than your spreadsheet — here’s what matters.
A data model that understands startups. The tool should know about funding rounds, not just generic cash inflows. It should handle priced equity rounds, convertible notes, SAFEs, and option pools natively. It should generate a cap table automatically when you model a round.
Scenario modeling that doesn’t require duplication. You should be able to create a scenario by changing one or two assumptions and see the impact across your entire model. If the tool makes you copy everything and maintain parallel models, it’s just a shinier spreadsheet.
Education for non-finance founders. Many of Finmark’s users were founders building their first financial model. Whatever comes next should meet those founders where they are — explaining terms in context, not assuming you already have an MBA.
Assumption-calculation separation. This is the core architectural difference between a purpose-built financial modeling tool and a spreadsheet. Your assumptions (growth rate, hiring plan, burn rate) should be clearly separated from the calculations (projections, financial statements, runway). Change an assumption, and every calculation updates. No formulas to break.
Accessible pricing. One reason Finmark worked for startups was the $50/month price point. Enterprise pricing doesn’t fit a pre-seed company’s budget. The tool needs to be accessible to the companies that need it most.
Where Burncast fits
We built Burncast specifically for this gap. Not because we anticipated Finmark’s shutdown, but because we saw the same underlying problem: startups need financial modeling tools that are built for how startups actually work.
Burncast separates assumptions from calculations, supports all four funding round types with three valuation entry modes (dilution %, pre-money valuation, price per share), and uses delta-based scenario modeling so you can change one assumption and see the impact without maintaining separate copies of your model.
We also built something none of the previous tools fully committed to: an inline glossary with 26 financial terms explained in context. Every unfamiliar term is defined where you encounter it, not in a help center you’ll never visit. Founders learn the vocabulary of startup finance while building their model.
What happens next
The consolidation of startup financial modeling tools is a loss for founders. Each acquisition removed an accessible, purpose-built option from the market. The companies doing the acquiring had different priorities — enterprise customers, banking relationships, European FP&A — and the startup use case didn’t survive the transition.
For founders currently on Finmark, the immediate task is practical: export your data before April 1 and find a new home for your financial model. Don’t default back to spreadsheets if you can avoid it. The reason you left spreadsheets in the first place hasn’t changed.
For the market broadly, the question is whether startup-specific financial modeling remains a viable independent category. We think it does. Startups are being created at a higher rate than ever, and the financial modeling needs of a 5-person startup are fundamentally different from a 500-person enterprise.
Someone needs to build for that market. That’s what we’re doing.