Moonfare vs LIQID: API, MCP and investor access compared

Key differences

• API. Moonfare: partner only (for partner users). LIQID: not offered.
• SFTP. Moonfare: not documented. LIQID: not offered.
• Webhooks. Moonfare: not documented. LIQID: not offered.
• Capabilities. Listed for LIQID only: Tax documents.
• Regions. Listed for Moonfare only: Europe, UK, North America, Asia Pacific and Middle East.
• Asset classes. Listed for Moonfare only: Private credit and Infrastructure.
• Web SSO. LIQID lists: OIDC; none recorded for Moonfare.
• MFA methods. Moonfare lists: authenticator app and SMS; none recorded for LIQID.

What the entries have in common

• Neither offers an MCP server, according to the registry.
• Email notifications: both are recorded as available.
• Investor-side API: not offered for either, according to the assessment.
• Difficulty: both are rated 4 of 5 (web login only, exports possible).
• Export formats: both list PDF.
• Automation policy: unknown for both.
• Known deployments: none documented for either yet.

Which fits which need

Neither product is right for every team. The statements below are conditional and come straight from the registry fields above.

For investors and LP operations teams

• If your investors or your operations team need documents and data through an API, the registry records the API as partner only (aimed at partner users) for Moonfare and not offered for LIQID. Access for the investor itself is recorded as not offered for either.
• If you want to reach the data from an AI assistant, the MCP server is not offered for either.
• If you process capital call and distribution notices from your inbox, email notifications are available for both.
• If you load files into your own systems, the registry lists PDF for both.
• If you plan to automate your own login, automation in the terms is unknown for both. Where it is prohibited or unknown, ask the GP or the vendor for a sanctioned channel first.

For GPs, fund administrators and buyers

• If you need to connect the product to your back office, Moonfare records API partner only, webhooks not documented and SFTP not documented; LIQID records API not offered, webhooks not offered and SFTP not offered.
• If the product must carry the core LP reporting items (capital calls, distributions, capital account statements and tax documents), the structured capabilities cover capital calls and distributions for Moonfare and capital calls, distributions and tax documents for LIQID.
• If your investors are concentrated in particular markets, the regions recorded are Europe, DACH, UK, North America, Asia Pacific and Middle East for Moonfare and DACH for LIQID.
• If you manage a specific strategy, the asset classes recorded are private equity, venture capital, private credit, infrastructure and fund of funds for Moonfare and private equity, venture capital and fund of funds for LIQID.
• If you want to see who already runs each product, the registry has no documented deployments for either yet. Operators can add theirs to the registry.
• If your investors will want programmatic access later, the difficulty rating is 4 of 5 for both, where 1 is a documented self-serve API an investor can use and 5 is web login only with MFA.

For a structured shortlist beyond these two products, see the guide how to choose an investor portal.

What the research says

Moonfare

Assessment. Default 2FA web login; partner API only for distributing institutions (marketing claims, no docs); investor gets PDFs and email notices.

Research notes. Confidence: high on default 2FA (vendor security page). Medium on partner API (vendor marketing pages, no docs). Partner models: client-directed, advised (POA) and nominee, so delegates can see investments via partner access rather than an investor API. Digital Reporting and quarterly reports appear in the web app 3-6 months after first capital call. No investor-side API, export beyond PDF unknown. Terms of use page not retrievable (404 at tested URLs); automation policy unknown.

• Web: Security page: 2FA enabled by default; app-based 2FA (e.g. Google Authenticator) recommended, implying SMS default. SSO described only for employees.
• API: Institutional pages advertise 'API integration' and white-label for wealth managers, banks, neo-banks and fintechs to offer PE on their own platform; no public docs, base URL or auth published. Fund admin fundcraft integrated via API (press, 2024-2026).
• MCP: None found in MCP registry/GitHub as of 2026-11-07.
• Email: Capital call and quarterly report notifications by email (marketing pages); not verified in help docs.

Sources: www.moonfare.com/security · www.moonfare.com/institutions-type-wealth-manager-and-bank · www.fundcraft.lu/?p=1965

LIQID

Assessment. Web/app only with Auth0 OIDC login; backend API not exposed; no developer program; export options unknown.

Research notes. Added as DACH platform. Confidence: high that no public API/MCP exists (third-party probe + vendor site). Upvest provides API infrastructure for LIQID's ELTIF, but that is B2B plumbing, not investor access. Investor-side API: none. Terms page not retrievable (404 at tested URL); automation policy unknown.

• Web: Auth0-backed login with OIDC discovery at authentication.liqid.de (customer login, not enterprise SSO). Web dashboard plus mobile app. MFA methods not published. Products: NXT (ELTIF, from EUR 10-20k) and PRO (PE/VC fund-of-funds, from EUR 100-200k).
• API: api.liqid.de exists but returns 401 on all probed paths; developer.liqid.de/docs.liqid.de do not resolve; no developer program (API Evangelist probe 2026-08-25).

Sources: providers.apievangelist.com/providers/liqid/ · www.liqid.de/private-equity · upvest.co/blog/liqid-enters-partnership-with-upvest-for-its-eltif-offering

Frequently asked questions