The architecture-first alternative to Monograph.

Monograph has built a strong reputation as practice management software designed specifically for architecture firms. It’s a genuinely good tool — the financial tracking and utilisation reporting are mature and well-regarded, especially among US practices. If you’re comparing Monograph and Setout, you’re already thinking the right way: architecture practices need tools built for architecture, not generic project management.

Where Monograph excels is in the numbers. Budget tracking, fee burn-down, team utilisation — the financial analytics are deep and well-proven. If your primary need is understanding how profitable each project is, Monograph does that well.

Where the two differ is scope and geography. Monograph was built for the US market — the fee structures, agreement templates, and workflows reflect American practice conventions. If you’re an Australian practice working with ArchiTeam or AIA agreements, percentage-of-construction-cost billing, and council planning processes, you’ll find yourself adapting the tool rather than the other way around.

The biggest difference is on the client side. Monograph is an internal tool — it helps your team track time, manage budgets, and monitor projects. That’s valuable. But your clients never see it. They’re still getting email attachments and phone calls.

Setout gives your clients a portal that matches the quality of your design work. A visual timeline of their project. A calendar of upcoming milestones. Showcase mode for the dinner party moment when they want to show off their renders. It turns your project management into a client experience.

If you’re a US firm focused primarily on financial analytics, Monograph is a proven choice. If you’re an Australian practice that wants client engagement alongside practice management, Setout is worth a serious look.