Define the non-negotiable workflows
| Requirement | Evidence to request |
|---|---|
| Client experience | Demonstration of required account, instrument and interface workflows. |
| Business systems | Supported CRM, verification, payment and reporting connections. |
| Execution and data | Available interfaces, instrument coverage and operational responsibilities. |
| Portability | Records and configurations that can be exported or retained on exit. |
| Operation | Hosting, administration, support and recovery boundaries. |
Score evidence as demonstrated, documented, conditional or not established. A feature name on a catalogue page is weaker evidence than the specific workflow working under the proposed agreement.
Compare the cost of change as well as the replacement
Inventory existing integrations, client communications, operator training and any tools tied to the current environment. Establish what can be retained, adapted or replaced. Do not assume software written for one platform or interface will operate unchanged on another.
Keep platform availability and commercial rights explicit. An alternative can address one limitation while introducing another provider dependency. A market-data connection, for example, should be evaluated separately from the ability to execute through a required destination.
Run a bounded proof of concept
Choose a representative client journey and the operational exceptions the team must manage. Demonstrate the proposed integration and reporting flow, then review the evidence with the people responsible after launch. Agree an exit from the test before connecting live business activity.
Use the MT5 deployment scope as the current comparison baseline rather than assuming a change is necessary. The platform comparison and whole-stack cost factors help separate a platform decision from a wider operating-model change.