DitchCarbon vs Persefoni

Updated 28 July 2026. This comparison is for finance and sustainability teams at financial institutions weighing how to improve the data behind their portfolio emissions reporting. It is factual by design: both products are credible, and the right choice depends on which problem you are solving.

What is Persefoni?

Persefoni is a climate management and accounting platform built with financial institutions in mind. It gives banks, asset managers and insurers a workflow for calculating, managing and disclosing emissions, including PCAF-aligned financed emissions reporting. If you are evaluating it, Persefoni's own documentation is the right source for its current capabilities.

What is DitchCarbon?

DitchCarbon provides verified emissions data for over 2 million organisations, then turns it into action: supplier and portfolio engagement, forecasting, benchmarking and target tracking, inside the tools procurement, sustainability and finance teams already run. It is a specialist Scope 3 carbon accounting platform, and for financial institutions the emphasis is counterparty coverage: private companies included, entity resolution against DUNS, LEI and ISIN identifiers, a source and change history on every figure, and coverage gaps shown, not hidden.

How do the two differ?

The honest distinction is the problem each is bought for. Persefoni organises the institution's own climate accounting and disclosure workflow. DitchCarbon is bought for the quality of the counterparty data and what you can do with it: raising PCAF data quality scores (DQ scores), engaging portfolio companies and tracking targets. Run alongside a platform like Persefoni, DitchCarbon becomes the data layer feeding that workflow. Run on its own, it is the platform.

• Problem solved: Persefoni organises the reporting workflow. DitchCarbon raises the quality of the counterparty data and acts on it, moving proxy-based DQ scores toward reported data.
• Coverage: DitchCarbon covers over 2 million organisations, private companies included, which is where most portfolios' data quality problems live.
• Verification: DitchCarbon's calculator is verified to ISO 14064-3, limited assurance, by UL Solutions, renewed annually, and it is the only specialist Scope 3 tool with third-party assurance of its calculation methodology. For the verification status of vendors across the category, see the benchmark post, which cites the evidence for each vendor including us. Our own documents are in the trust centre.
• Time to a usable baseline: numbers you can defend within 2 weeks.

When is Persefoni the right choice?

When the institution wants one vendor to run the full climate accounting and disclosure workflow, and its counterparty data problem is modest: a book concentrated in listed names with good disclosure, or a team that has already solved data collection elsewhere.

When is DitchCarbon the right choice?

When the data is the problem. If your DQ distribution sits at 4 and 5, if private companies make up much of your book, or if your auditor is asking where the figures came from, the gap is not workflow. DitchCarbon fits the tools you already run, so improving the data does not require replacing the platform around it, and institutions without a suite run measurement, engagement and target tracking in DitchCarbon itself.

Can you use both?

Yes, and institutions do. In that pairing DitchCarbon becomes the data layer feeding Persefoni or whichever reporting system you run, and the workflow platform organises the disclosure built on it. The two solve different problems, so running both is common rather than awkward.

See the comparison on your own book

The fastest test is your own portfolio. Request a walkthrough and we will show the DQ distribution on a sample of your counterparties.