The terms FP&A and Financial Analyst are used inconsistently enough that it's easy to conflate them. Sometimes they refer to the same person. Sometimes they describe meaningfully different scopes of work. For a growing company trying to figure out what analytical support it actually needs, the distinction matters.
FP&A stands for Financial Planning and Analysis – the set of activities focused on budgeting, forecasting, long-range planning, and performance analysis. In large companies, it's an entire department. In a growing company, it might be two people, one person, or – most commonly in early stages – nobody dedicated to it at all.
The FP&A function owns the forward-looking financial work: the annual budget, quarterly forecasts, scenario modeling, board reporting, and ongoing variance analysis that tracks performance against plan.
A Financial Analyst is a person – typically early to mid-career in finance – who does the analytical and modeling work that supports the FP&A function. At a growing company without a formal FP&A team, a Financial Analyst is often the person who is the FP&A function: building models, running analysis, tracking KPIs, and producing the reporting that leadership needs.
MAVI places Financial Analysts with four-plus years of high-growth experience who effectively cover most FP&A deliverables – budgeting support, forecasting, variance analysis, investor reporting – without the overhead of a senior FP&A Manager or VP. For most companies between $3M and $25M ARR, this is the right entry point into analytical capability.
One common mistake: a company decides it "needs FP&A" and immediately looks for a senior FP&A Manager or VP, when what it actually needs is an analyst to do the foundational modeling and reporting work. The senior hire is premature and expensive if the analytical infrastructure doesn't exist yet.
The other: a company hires a Financial Analyst and expects them to own the entire FP&A function – including strategic planning conversations with leadership, board relationship management, and cross-functional influence that belongs at a more senior level. That mismatch creates frustration in both directions.
With the right experience and scope, a Financial Analyst can cover significant FP&A ground independently: budget modeling and variance tracking, rolling forecasts updated monthly against actuals, KPI dashboards pulling from billing systems and CRMs, scenario analyses for hiring and investment decisions, and board and investor reporting packages.
MAVI Financial Analysts are experienced supporting executive teams with modeling, investor-grade reporting, and data-driven decision support in SaaS, tech, and venture-backed environments.
When financial planning requires significant cross-functional coordination, when the board expects a senior finance voice in planning conversations, or when you need someone to manage a team of analysts – that's when the FP&A Manager tier makes sense. Most companies reach that point well after they've already needed a Financial Analyst.
Yes – with the right scope and a clear reporting line to the CFO or Head of Finance. A Financial Analyst with four-plus years of experience can own budgeting, forecasting, KPI tracking, and board reporting effectively. The limit is typically the strategic planning and cross-functional coordination that starts to require a more senior level.
A Financial Analyst builds and maintains the analytical infrastructure – models, dashboards, reports. An FP&A Manager owns the planning process at a leadership level, manages analysts, and has broader cross-functional influence. The Manager tier makes sense once the company has a team of analysts or needs a senior voice in board-level planning conversations.
SaaS, fintech, e-commerce, and venture-backed tech companies – environments where unit economics, subscription metrics (ARR, MRR, churn, LTV/CAC), and rapid growth modeling are core competencies.
MAVI's vetting goes beyond resume screening – assessing modeling depth, analytical methodology, communication quality, and prior performance in high-growth environments. The result is pre-vetted analysts who contribute from week one rather than candidates who need to be evaluated from scratch.