Affinity sells relationship mapping as its core promise: the ability to see a prospect's board connections, previous deals with your team, and the human network underneath every transaction. For wealth advisors managing $500M+ in AUM across dozens of family offices and co-investor groups, that promise matters. One missing connection can cost a deal; one flattened relationship graph can orphan months of relationship-building work. But the moment you need to migrate to another platform—whether PipeDrive, Orin, or anything else—that relationship depth becomes your biggest liability. Affinity's export doesn't flatten just data; it flattens the relationships themselves. We migrated 5,000 Affinity contacts across three wealth advisory teams and tested how PipeDrive and Orin rebuilt what was lost. The verdict: PipeDrive recovers the structure but not the depth. Orin recovers both—but only if you rebuild intentionally. What Affinity exports—and what it destroys Affinity's strength is its ability to surface indirect relationships. You can see that a prospect's board member worked with your partner fund in 2019, or that a co-founder has a relationship with someone on your team. This is stored as a relationship graph —not just contacts, but the edges between them. When you export from Affinity, you get: Contact records with name, email, title, company Deal history (if you manually link it in export settings) Custom fields and notes Tag history Relationship type labels (e.g., "board member," "LP," "co-founder") but only for direct Affinity relationships What you don't get: The graph itself—connections between contacts outside your direct relationships Multi-hop paths (e.g., "your partner knew their advisor, who knows the decision-maker") Historical relationship strength or interaction depth Relationship velocity (how fast did this relationship accelerate?) Conflict of interest maps or competitor relationship overlaps For a wealth advisor, this is catastrophic. You're left with 5,000 contact records but no memory of the network that connected them. Rebuilding from scratch takes 60+ days of manual work—pulling Slack histories, reviewing LinkedIn profiles, auditing email threads. How PipeDrive handles multi-stakeholder deals (and where it fails) PipeDrive is built for sales velocity: one deal, one pipeline, one close date. It handles related contacts reasonably well. You can link multiple people to a single deal and assign roles (e.g., "decision-maker," "influencer," "end user"). This works for straight sales cycles. For wealth advisory, it breaks immediately: The problem: A typical wealth advisory deal involves 8–15 stakeholders across 3+ institutions. The decision-maker at Fund A needs sign-off from LP Council at Fund B, which includes a board member from Fund C, who has a fiduciary obligation to another LLP entirely. One deal in PipeDrive can have 15 contacts attached, but the system doesn't surface the relationships between those contacts —only their connection to the deal. You lose context like: Which stakeholder can actually override the decision-maker Who holds conflicting interests (someone sits on multiple boards) Which relationships are transactional vs. trusted Which stakeholder has veto power but isn't the sponsor PipeDrive offers a "Related Companies" feature and basic organization charts, but these are static and require manual setup. A wealth advisor team tested PipeDrive for 90 days and had to maintain a parallel relationship map in Notion to track the actual network. That's not a tool; that's a workaround. Migration fidelity from Affinity: ~70%. PipeDrive preserves contacts and direct deal relationships but loses the relationship graph structure. Orin's approach: Relationships as objects, not labels Orin treats relationships differently. Instead of attaching contacts to deals, it models relationships as first-class objects. A wealth advisor can map: Contact-to-contact links with custom relationship types (e.g., "board member of," "LP at," "advisor to," "conflicted with") Multi-hop visibility: You can trace a path from your contact to any prospect, even if you haven't directly mapped it Relationship strength (tracked through interaction history, not manual labels) Deal inheritance: When you create a deal and link multiple stakeholders, the system surfaces their inter-relationships automatically Time-stamped relationship changes: When someone changes roles, gains a board seat, or moves companies, the system logs it as a relationship event This is closer to what Affinity does, but with a critical difference: Orin's CRM links relationship mapping directly to its unified messaging layer . A wealth advisor can see that two stakeholders just exchanged WhatsApp messages, or that an LP's advisor left them a voice memo. Relationship depth comes from interaction history, not Affinity's static "relationship type" labels. The rebuild process: We tested migrating 5,000 Affinity contacts to Orin. The direct contact data