Commissioned Research
Top 10 Best Capital Advisory Services of 2026

GITNUXSOFTWARE REVIEW

Finance & Financial Services

Top 10 Best Capital Advisory Services of 2026

Market-research roundup of capital advisory services, comparing options like PJT Partners, William Blair, and Lincoln International for deal planning.

19 min readUpdated Editorially scoped research
How we ranked these tools
01Editorial Scope

Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.

02Source Research

Search agents gather the source set and the review record, including transcriptions of video reviews and podcasts.

Read our full methodology →

Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%

Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page. This does not influence our reviews. Editorial policy

Capital advisory services support corporate finance and deal execution by translating funding strategy into financing structures, capital structure guidance, and execution-ready materials for market and lender engagement. This comparison helps analysts and operators weigh execution depth, restructuring coverage, and capital markets advisory fit when selecting firms for debt issuance, liability management, or complex transactions that require tight coordination across deal stakeholders.

PJT Partners is the best pick for corporate finance teams that need deal-side capital structuring plus hands-on negotiation because its advisory team connects financing alternatives analysis to live lender and investor talks, while William Blair is a strong alternative for teams that want senior-led execution spanning outreach, underwriting, and term negotiations.

Editor’s top 3 picks

Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.

Editor pick
1

PJT Partners

Capital advisory engagements that connect financing alternatives analysis to live lender and investor negotiation under one advisory team.

Best for: Fits when corporate finance teams need deal-side capital structuring, outreach, and negotiation execution support.

2

William Blair

Editor pick

Senior-led transaction process management that ties financing analysis to outreach, underwriting, and term negotiations.

Best for: Fits when corporate finance teams need advisor-led transaction management across equity and debt processes.

3

Lincoln International

Editor pick

Coordinated execution across debt and equity advisory lines with consistent lender and committee materials.

Best for: Fits when mid-market teams need executed capital advisory plus decision-ready materials for financing transitions.

Comparison Table

1
PJT PartnersBest overall
enterprise_vendor
9.1/10
Overall
2
enterprise_vendor
8.8/10
Overall
3
enterprise_vendor
8.6/10
Overall
4
enterprise_vendor
8.4/10
Overall
5
enterprise_vendor
8.3/10
Overall
6
enterprise_vendor
7.8/10
Overall
7
enterprise_vendor
7.6/10
Overall
8
enterprise_vendor
7.1/10
Overall
9
enterprise_vendor
6.8/10
Overall
10
enterprise_vendor
6.6/10
Overall
#1

PJT Partners

enterprise_vendor

Independent investment bank with dedicated capital advisory and restructuring groups.

9.1/10
Overall
Features9.1/10
Ease of Use9.0/10
Value9.2/10
Standout feature

Capital advisory engagements that connect financing alternatives analysis to live lender and investor negotiation under one advisory team.

PJT Partners supports capital advisory mandates that require cross-stakeholder coordination between management, financial sponsors, lenders, and potential investors. Capital structure analysis and financing alternatives analysis are used to frame term sheet dynamics and risk allocation choices during the transaction process. The firm also delivers lender and investor materials and runs process timelines that culminate in offer negotiation and closing execution support.

A practical tradeoff is limited fit for buyers that need productized automation or an internal API surface to operationalize deal workflows. PJT Partners is most useful when transaction leadership needs an external capital advisory team to produce decision materials and manage outreach cycles under tight sequencing constraints.

Pros
  • +Transaction process management built around capital markets execution
  • +Experienced advisory coverage for refinancing and recapitalization scenarios
  • +Clear negotiation support across lender and investor discussions
  • +High-quality deal materials suited for issuer and sponsor governance
Cons
  • –Not a workflow software option with API or automation surface
  • –Engagement requires strong internal sponsorship to maintain momentum
Use scenarios
  • CFO and corporate finance leaders

    Refinancing with multiple lender constituencies

    Refinancing terms drive execution

  • Financial sponsors

    Recapitalization after portfolio acceleration

    Capital plan supports transaction close

Show 2 more scenarios
  • M&A deal teams

    Acquisition financing with mixed capital needs

    Financing aligned to transaction timetable

    Advisory support coordinates financing strategy and deal materials for lender and investor audiences.

  • Board and investment committee staff

    Financing decision support and materials

    Decision workflow moves faster

    Analytical deliverables support investment committee discussions and lender presentation readiness.

Best for: Fits when corporate finance teams need deal-side capital structuring, outreach, and negotiation execution support.

#2

William Blair

enterprise_vendor

Independent investment bank with capital markets and financing advisory services.

8.8/10
Overall
Features8.8/10
Ease of Use8.7/10
Value8.9/10
Standout feature

Senior-led transaction process management that ties financing analysis to outreach, underwriting, and term negotiations.

William Blair fits corporate finance teams that need advisor-grade transaction management alongside finance analysis for capital markets transactions. The firm’s core work commonly spans equity capital advisory, debt advisory, and broader corporate finance advisory, with emphasis on sequencing, stakeholder alignment, and investor communications through deal milestones. Delivery quality is usually measured by how consistently work products map to an underwriting process and how tightly messaging supports indicative offers and term sheet negotiations.

A practical tradeoff is limited self-serve tooling, since the engagement model centers on advisor output rather than technology-assisted workflows for internal teams. William Blair is a strong choice when deal velocity depends on tightening assumptions for debt capacity analysis, coordinating investor outreach, and preparing management materials under a defined transaction process.

Pros
  • +Senior-led execution that keeps financing work aligned to deal milestones
  • +Structured outreach support for both lender discussions and investor conversations
  • +Clear coordination of internal approvals with management and investor materials
  • +Strong sequencing of financing alternatives to reduce rework mid-process
Cons
  • –Less workflow automation for teams expecting self-serve coordination tooling
  • –Requires active client participation to keep diligence and materials on schedule
  • –Stakeholder management workload shifts to internal teams during tight deadlines
  • –Deliverables can be document-heavy for organizations with lean deal ops
Use scenarios
  • CFO and treasury teams

    Refinancing with multiple debt options

    Negotiated terms with fewer iterations

  • Investment banking deal teams

    Equity capital raise for growth

    Cohesive messaging to investors

Show 2 more scenarios
  • Corporate development leaders

    M-and-A financing for an acquisition

    Financing plan aligned to timing

    Capital structure advisory integrates acquisition financing needs with stakeholder expectations.

  • Private equity finance teams

    Sponsor-backed recapitalization

    Term sheet grounded in capacity

    Debt and equity coordination supports negotiations for deal terms and lender coverage.

Best for: Fits when corporate finance teams need advisor-led transaction management across equity and debt processes.

#3

Lincoln International

enterprise_vendor

Independent investment bank specializing in debt advisory and capital structure solutions.

8.6/10
Overall
Features8.6/10
Ease of Use8.6/10
Value8.6/10
Standout feature

Coordinated execution across debt and equity advisory lines with consistent lender and committee materials.

Lincoln International delivers capital advisory through its investment banking service lines, with practical support for corporate finance advisory, debt advisory, and equity capital advisory workstreams in the same engagement cycle. Delivery emphasis typically shows up in transaction process management, coordinated lender or investor outreach, and structured materials that help leadership and committees align on financing direction. The firm’s engagement shape suits leadership teams that need external market-facing execution plus internal narrative coherence.

A tradeoff is that the same execution focus can yield less flexibility for highly bespoke, internally owned workflows where the client expects tight control over every process artifact. Lincoln International fits best when an issuer needs credible market access paired with transaction discipline, such as refinancing, recapitalization, or acquisition financing that requires multiple financing alternatives. It also works well when management must brief lenders and investors with consistent messaging across successive steps of the transaction process.

Pros
  • +Strong lender and investor messaging through execution-grade materials
  • +Depth across debt and equity advisory within one process
  • +Clear transaction process management that supports decision cycles
  • +Consistent internal committee storytelling for financing choices
Cons
  • –Less suited for teams wanting fully client-driven process ownership
  • –May require tighter client responsiveness to maintain momentum
  • –Engagement artifacts can feel structured rather than highly customized
  • –Broader coverage can shift emphasis away from niche strategies
Use scenarios
  • CFO and finance leadership teams

    Refinancing with lender outreach

    Faster alignment on financing terms

  • Corporate development leaders

    Acquisition financing and deal support

    Financing path built for closing

Show 2 more scenarios
  • Board and investment committee stakeholders

    Recapitalization decision materials

    Decision-making with fewer iterations

    Advisory output targets committee readiness with clear alternatives and process narrative.

  • Private equity portfolio finance teams

    Capital structure adjustments during ownership

    Capital structure updated for next phase

    The firm supports financing alternatives analysis and execution to match transaction timing and constraints.

Best for: Fits when mid-market teams need executed capital advisory plus decision-ready materials for financing transitions.

#4

Lazard

enterprise_vendor

Global financial advisory firm offering capital structure and restructuring advisory.

8.4/10
Overall
Features8.4/10
Ease of Use8.4/10
Value8.4/10
Standout feature

Investor narrative and lender-facing materials are integrated tightly with the transaction process to support clean signaling across stakeholders.

Lazard provides capital advisory for corporate finance and deal advisory work, and its distinctiveness comes from senior-led execution across complex capital structure decisions. Core capabilities include financing alternatives analysis, capital structure advisory, and preparation of lender and management materials that support transaction processes.

Pros
  • +Senior-led advisory model supports complex cross-currency financing discussions
  • +Investment committee ready materials reduce churn across sponsor and board stakeholders
  • +Strong handling of lender and investor outreach coordination within transactions
  • +Consistent process discipline across equity and debt advisory workstreams
Cons
  • –Document-heavy engagements can increase internal coordination workload
  • –API and automation surface is not part of the delivery model
  • –Turnaround depends on engagement staffing and internal data availability
  • –Integration depth is limited because deliverables are advice and materials

Best for: Fits when a corporate finance team needs senior-led deal advisory and investor material drafting for high-stakes financing decisions.

#5

Evercore

enterprise_vendor

Elite independent investment bank with capital advisory and restructuring services.

8.3/10
Overall
Features8.3/10
Ease of Use8.3/10
Value8.3/10
Standout feature

Evercore’s deal teams run an end-to-end transaction process that converts financing alternatives into stakeholder-ready presentations and next-step underwriting support.

Evercore executes corporate finance advisory for capital markets transactions and M&A financing, with deal teams focused on process management from early financing strategy through execution support. The firm differentiates through sectorized senior advisory coverage and transaction process work that produces board-ready materials such as lender and management presentations.

Pros
  • +Senior-led deal teams that shape financing options and execution path
  • +Strong production quality for lender and management presentation materials
  • +Structured approach to financing alternatives analysis for capital structure decisions
  • +Credible support for creditor-facing communications in restructuring situations
Cons
  • –High-touch process can slow internal cycles for time-sensitive teams
  • –Requires close coordination to keep investor outreach inputs consistent
  • –Less suited for very small mandates without dedicated senior attention
  • –Scope can skew toward advisory outputs rather than hands-on integration work

Best for: Fits when complex financing choices need senior process control and tightly written committee-ready materials.

#6

Moelis & Company

enterprise_vendor

Independent global investment bank with capital markets advisory capabilities.

7.8/10
Overall
Features7.8/10
Ease of Use7.7/10
Value7.9/10
Standout feature

Deal teams produce lender-facing positioning narratives that connect financing alternatives to board and committee decision pacing.

Moelis & Company supports corporate finance advisory across capital structure and financing execution, with deal teams built around public and private market transactions. The firm’s core work centers on transaction process management for capital markets execution, lender and investor outreach materials, and financing alternatives discussion that maps to board and investment committee workflows.

Pros
  • +Strong execution focus across refinancing and acquisition financing mandates
  • +Deal-team driven sequencing for lender and investor process timelines
  • +Well-structured decision-support materials for executives and boards
  • +Clear advisory ownership across outreach, structuring, and negotiation steps
Cons
  • –Heavier process coordination workload for internal teams than lighter boutiques
  • –Less ideal for mandates requiring highly standardized playbooks only
  • –Project momentum can depend on timely client inputs and document cadence
  • –Not optimized for small, highly customized one-off advisory scopes

Best for: Fits when sponsors or corporates need end-to-end capital advisory execution with structured process support.

#7

Guggenheim Partners

enterprise_vendor

Global investment and advisory firm with capital markets advisory services.

7.6/10
Overall
Features7.6/10
Ease of Use7.6/10
Value7.6/10
Standout feature

A capital markets execution mindset embedded in advisory work for financing alternatives through negotiation and underwriting stages.

Guggenheim Partners differentiates through capital markets execution capacity paired with full-cycle capital advisory work for complex corporate finance and sponsor-driven transactions. Its core capabilities center on financing alternatives analysis, capital structure advisory, and transaction process management across both debt and equity pathways.

Pros
  • +Execution depth in capital markets supports realistic refinancing and recapitalization paths
  • +Process rigor for lender and investor outreach improves coordination across stakeholder timelines
  • +Broad corporate finance coverage supports recap, refinancing, and capital structure work under one team
  • +Restructuring advisory experience fits liability strategy discussions during downside scenarios
Cons
  • –Integration with internal deal tooling depends on client process maturity rather than built-in systems
  • –Automation and API surface are not a focal capability for governance or workflow control
  • –Collaboration requires clear data ownership because engagement outputs come from deal-specific inputs
  • –Turnaround consistency can hinge on the complexity of concurrent workstreams and parallel deals

Best for: Fits when corporate finance teams need execution-grade capital advisory plus lender and investor process support.

#8

KPMG Capital Advisory

enterprise_vendor

Big Four firm offering debt and capital advisory services across global markets.

7.1/10
Overall
Features7.1/10
Ease of Use7.1/10
Value7.1/10
Standout feature

Transaction process management that coordinates outreach, underwriting inputs, and draft cycles for lender and investment committee materials.

KPMG Capital Advisory delivers corporate finance advisory through KPMG’s deal team model, with structured support for capital structure and capital markets transaction execution. Core deliverables typically include financing alternatives analysis, underwriting and process management support for equity capital advisory and debt advisory workstreams, and execution support for lender and investor outreach.

Pros
  • +Senior-led execution for equity capital advisory and debt advisory process milestones
  • +Financing alternatives analysis that supports clear capital structure decisions
  • +Stakeholder-ready materials for investment committees and lender discussions
  • +Strong process management through underwriting and transaction planning activities
Cons
  • –Primarily advisory delivery with limited self-serve workflow automation
  • –Requires tight internal alignment to keep deliverables on the transaction timeline

Best for: Fits when corporate finance teams need senior-led deal advisory and stakeholder-ready financing documentation.

#9

Deloitte Capital Advisory

enterprise_vendor

Big Four professional services firm with capital advisory and debt advisory offerings.

6.8/10
Overall
Features6.8/10
Ease of Use6.8/10
Value6.8/10
Standout feature

Investor communication package development tightly mapped to term evolution across underwriting and negotiations.

Deloitte Capital Advisory supports corporate finance and deal advisory teams across capital structure, underwriting support, and financing process management for transactions that require tight issuer-to-investor coordination. The engagement delivery emphasizes structuring work with investment committee materials, lender and investor outreach enablement, and documentation that tracks deal terms through negotiations.

Pros
  • +Deal teams build investor-facing materials with consistent term alignment.
  • +Structured process management for underwriting and financing path decisions.
  • +Experienced capital markets staff support lender and sponsor coverage.
  • +Transaction documentation quality supports internal approvals and diligence.
Cons
  • –Engagement outcomes depend on client-provided inputs and timelines.
  • –Automation and API surface are not part of the core offering.
  • –Change requests can increase delivery cycles during term negotiations.
  • –Standard workflows require active governance across stakeholders.

Best for: Fits when large-cap teams need coordinated capital advisory delivery across complex financing steps.

#10

EY Capital Advisors

enterprise_vendor

Big Four firm offering capital advisory and transaction structuring services.

6.6/10
Overall
Features6.6/10
Ease of Use6.6/10
Value6.6/10
Standout feature

Dedicated deal execution support that coordinates financing alternatives narrative into investor-ready communication across lenders and investors.

EY Capital Advisors supports corporate finance and capital markets transactions through staffed advisory delivery that links capital structure analysis with execution planning. The team contributes transaction process management across debt advisory, equity capital advisory, and recapitalization scenarios, with extensive experience shaping lender and investor materials.

Pros
  • +Transaction process management across debt, equity, and recapitalizations
  • +Materials-focused lender and investor outreach planning for deal teams
  • +Decision-ready financing alternatives analysis for internal approvals
  • +Experienced deal execution support aligned to complex stakeholder workflows
Cons
  • –Delivery depends on EY staffing and requires strong client coordination
  • –Workflow automation is limited compared with software-led advisory tools
  • –Light self-serve interaction can reduce speed for teams needing constant iteration
  • –Approval cycles for stakeholder reviews can extend timeline windows

Best for: Fits when internal teams need staffed deal execution support across corporate finance and capital markets processes.

Conclusion

After evaluating 10 capital advisory, PJT Partners stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.

Our Top Pick
PJT Partners

Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.

Frequently Asked Questions About Capital Advisory

How do capital advisory engagements typically start for a corporate finance team?
Deloitte Capital Advisory usually begins with an internal financing and process intake that maps stakeholder timelines to deal steps, then converts those requirements into investment committee materials and outreach outputs. Evercore and KPMG Capital Advisory often start by translating financing strategy into board-ready presentation formats and defining who supplies underwriting inputs during the transaction process.
Which firms focus more on transaction process management versus standalone analytics?
Evercore and KPMG Capital Advisory place heavier emphasis on process management that turns financing alternatives into lender and management presentation cycles. EY Capital Advisors and Lazard lean more toward integrating capital structure advisory narrative into the transaction workflow, while still driving underwriting and information flow for investor-facing materials.
What breaks if stakeholder materials are not synchronized during underwriting and negotiations?
If materials lag term evolution, Guggenheim Partners and Moelis & Company can end up reworking lender-facing positioning narratives because negotiation dynamics change the underlying assumptions behind financing alternatives. Deloitte Capital Advisory mitigates this risk by tracking deal terms through negotiations and keeping investor communication packages aligned to those updates.
When does the capital advisory scope shift from acquisition financing to recapitalization or restructuring advisory?
Moelis & Company often treats the mandate as scenario-driven, with scope shifting when refinancing or recapitalization needs emerge from the lender and investor discussions. PJT Partners and Evercore handle similar transitions by carrying financing strategy through execution support and re-mapping stakeholder deliverables when creditor negotiation or liability strategy becomes central.
How do capital advisory teams handle data migration from internal spreadsheets and templates into deliverables?
Lazard and Lincoln International typically standardize a deal data model for investment committee materials and lender presentations, then reformat inputs into consistent schedules and term-linked exhibits. EY Capital Advisors and Deloitte Capital Advisory focus on decision-ready artifacts and diligence support, so migration is about preserving the assumptions behind the financing narrative rather than moving the analytics into a self-serve system.
Which providers support technical handoff needs for document production and governance workflows?
Deloitte Capital Advisory and KPMG Capital Advisory commonly align documentation outputs to internal governance rhythms so drafts can flow into committee review and stakeholder sign-off processes. Guggenheim Partners and Evercore still operate primarily as advisory delivery models, so technical support centers on repeatable document structures rather than provisioning a software workflow.
How do firms approach security and access control for confidential information memorandums and lender outreach materials?
PJT Partners and EY Capital Advisors typically run confidentiality workflows tied to deal teams and external party access so only authorized stakeholders receive investor outreach materials and information memorandum content. Deloitte Capital Advisory and KPMG Capital Advisory tend to enforce role-based access patterns through engagement governance, with audit log expectations managed inside the client’s existing document controls.
What is the tradeoff between sector specialization and cross-transaction consistency?
Evercore’s sectorized senior coverage can improve consistency in board-ready materials for complex financing choices, but it may reduce flexibility when a mandate needs rapid coverage across unrelated industries. William Blair and Lazard often keep delivery consistent through a standardized investor and lender materials workflow, though sector depth may vary by engagement staffing.
Which providers are better fit when the engagement must produce committee-ready investor and lender presentations on tight timelines?
Lincoln International and KPMG Capital Advisory are strong fits when the work depends on iterative draft cycles that keep investor and investment committee content aligned to outreach and underwriting inputs. Guggenheim Partners and Moelis & Company fit timelines where execution-grade capital markets process support is required and negotiation stages drive frequent material updates.
When teams need extensibility for new financing scenarios, how do firms adapt deliverables?
PJT Partners and Evercore adapt by re-running financing alternatives narrative and converting the updated assumptions into lender and management presentation drafts as scenarios change. Deloitte Capital Advisory and Moelis & Company treat extensibility as a documentation discipline, so new scenarios map back into the existing deal term framework used across negotiations.

Tools reviewed

Primary sources checked during evaluation.

Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.

How to Choose the Right Capital Advisory

Capital advisory options differ most in how they produce and govern decision-ready outputs—especially around capital advisory report automation, auditability, and how data flows into your plan. We focus on documentation that shows repeatable work, not one-off narratives, so the outputs stay consistent between runs.

Report automation for capital workpapers

Why it matters

Report automation for capital workpapers matters because capital advisory outputs change with assumptions, so you need the same workflow every time. It reduces the risk that staff recreate tables differently for similar scenarios.

How to check

Ask for a demo that starts from an input set and ends with a packaged workpaper output. Then change one assumption and confirm which sections update automatically and which do not.

Assumption version control and trace

Why it matters

Assumption version control and trace matter because capital advisory decisions depend on what changed and when. Without traceability, you cannot defend why an output moved during committee review.

How to check

In a sandbox or sample workspace, update key inputs and check whether the system keeps prior versions. Ask for a way to view a side-by-side diff or a change log linked to each output.

Method notes tied to outputs

Why it matters

Method notes tied to outputs matter because capital advisory readers need to understand calculation intent, not just results. Good linkage makes it easier to review scenarios and spot modeling gaps.

How to check

Request an example output and open the method notes for multiple sections. Confirm the notes map to the exact output components you see, and not generic text.

Provisioning for advisor-client workflows

Why it matters

Provisioning for advisor-client workflows matters because capital advisory often involves multiple stakeholders and review steps. The tool should let you configure who can prepare, review, and export without rebuilding the process each time.

How to check

Ask how roles are set up in a workspace and how many review states you can represent. Then try assigning roles to two demo users and verify what each can view and export.

Audit log for changes and exports

Why it matters

Audit log for changes and exports matters because capital advisory workpapers become evidence. If the trail is incomplete, you lose accountability when assumptions, outputs, or file exports change.

How to check

Perform a small workflow: change an assumption, regenerate outputs, and export. Confirm the audit log records user, timestamp, change type, and the generated output/export reference.

Data import/export with schema consistency

Why it matters

Data import/export with schema consistency matters because capital advisory inputs come from finance systems and templates. If the schema drifts across templates, results become hard to compare across iterations.

How to check

Bring a sample input template and test an import that includes columns you care about. After import, export the dataset or workpaper back out and verify the labels and units remain consistent.

Red flags

  • Outputs change without a clear assumption change trail
  • Method notes are generic and not linked to specific workpaper parts
  • Audit logs omit exports or key regeneration events

Fit by situation

  • If we run repeated scenario updates during a capital advisory cycle, prioritize report automation for capital workpapers.
  • If we need defensible review history for prior decisions, prioritize assumption version control and trace.
  • If multiple stakeholders prepare and export workpapers, prioritize audit log for changes and exports.
Commissioned Research

Funding and competing interests

This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.

They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.

Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →

Keep exploring

FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS

Not on this list? Let’s fix that.

Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.

Apply for a Listing

WHAT THIS INCLUDES

  • Where buyers compare

    Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.

  • Editorial write-up

    We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.

  • On-page brand presence

    You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.

  • Kept up to date

    We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.