Corbel vs Accudraft

[Guest Giovanni]

We (a TPA firm) have been using Corbel for several years for documents and are not fully satisfied. We are now considering Accudraft. Just wondering if anyone has any comments about their experiences with either one.

[Bird]

We've used Accudraft (volume submitter plans) for quite a few years and I would say we're reasonably happy.

They are, or were, less expensive, so that's a plus.

Their safe harbor language gives the flexibility to use the "maybe" notice followed by the "definitely" notice. The last time I checked, the Corbel document locks you in.

I'd say it's easy to use.

On the negative side, I've found that you have to push hard to get a direct answer to a question.

Also, the document language seems to change, without notice. They've told me that any changes were either approved by the IRS (but I don't understand how you could have two different VS documents, with different language, relying on the same opinion letter) or just corrections of errors, which is permitted. Mmmm.

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

We use Accudraft too with similar mixed results. My biggest beef is that they seem to provide language without fully contemplating all the necessary ramifications.

For example, when the gateway rules came into effect, they provided some nice fail-safe gateway language. The problem was that in the language the gateway was stated to be provided to Eligible Employees. Of course Eligible Employees had a definition tied to who was eligible for the profit sharing contribution for the year. This of course did not cover those who may benefit under a different source of nonelective contribution, like TH or a safe harbor nonelective. Also within that same language, no where did it state that the gateway minimum can be provided on compensation from date of plan entry.

We still have documents that have the deficient language. The corrections were eventually made to new documents generated but not until our GUST document restatement process was well under way.

There have been other instances as well. I will say though that they do seem to listen to their users and then implement the changes eventually.

[Guest Pensions in Paradise]

Giovanni - would you mind sharing with us why you are not satisfied with Corbel. We have been using the PPD documents and are pretty happy with them, but it would be interesting to see feedback from other users.

[Guest Giovanni]

Pensions in Paradise: I don't mean to bad mouth Corbel, I'm sure there are issues with all providers. I have nothing to compare them to, so I don't know if they are better or worse. I find their checklist somewhat confusing. I got a copy of Accudraft's checklist and it appears more straightforward. Also, I feel Corbel's short amendment checklist needs to be more extensive to cover more specifications. For example: it does not allow you to amend the entry dates. I assume this would be a fairly common amendment needed for plans.

Thank you for all your responses, much appreciated.

[Guest bjschiedel]

We currently use Accudraft and have produced over 50 plan documents with the software. We have found that they provide excellent support when you call, in fact, the President has called us back on occasion when his employees are fielding multiple inquiries from users/clients. We looked at Corbel but got mixed reactions from practitioners so we went with Accudraft. They have frequent updates on the website and it is a very user friendly program. I don't think you will be dissatisfied with it.

[elleny]

We have not been happy with Accudraft. There are grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors throughout their volume submitter and their prototype documents. This is the least of the problems we encountered. Their support is accessible but not competent.

It was like we were proofing and reviewing their work for them.

Be careful if you use them.

[chris]

We've used Corbel for twenty years at least back when they were a much smaller outfit. We always get very competent advice regarding document issues, etc.... Also, the volume submitter documents (incl. the checklists) are not that difficult to work with. Robert Richter at Corbel has been dealing with retirement plan issues for years and is very knowledgeable.

[Guest affinity]

I would love to talk to someone that is using Accudraft. I have a job interview next week and they use Accudraft and I would like to at least be conversant.

I used Corbel in the early 1990s so I am familiar with automated documents. Anyone up for a phone call? I would consider it a very generous act if someone would talk to me about this. If you call me at 415.733.4116 I would be happy to call you back if you like.

[Archimage]

I have had the same issues as Elleny. There are instances that when you are building a document that contains a provision that you would rarely use, they would forget to build that feature in the document! You really have to proofread to make sure there are no document building errors. It is a cheaper document and you get what you pay for.