An AI analyst worth using on a rent roll and T-12 builds the pro forma, and it also tells you which figures it could not check. In one Titleman underwriting run with no rent roll and no T-12 attached, the analyst built a net operating income of $210,369 on market rent, marked 211 of 1,402 fact rows as missing, and found that the deal was not the one the brief described.
What people mean by "Enodo alternative"
Buyers who ask for an alternative to Enodo usually want one of three things: the rent roll cleaned into a standard table, a pro forma built from it, or a view of the market around the property. The names that come up for these jobs include Enodo for multifamily scoring, Docsumo for document extraction and Lev for commercial financing, plus the spreadsheet most analysts still build in. Check each vendor's own description for current scope.
This page does not rank them. We have not run the other tools on a common file, and a comparison we did not run would not be worth reading. What follows is one run of ours, counted, and five tests you can apply to any analyst, ours included.
The run: no documents, one brief
The run was made on a Titleman QA account on 14 October 2026. The brief asked us to underwrite a medical office in Leander, Texas as a single-tenant building leased to a primary-care clinic, and to show the value, the cash flow and the returns, with the sale and lease comps behind them.
No lease, no rent roll and no operating statement were attached. We chose that on purpose: it is the case where an analyst is most tempted to invent. The run started at 12:36:23 UTC and was delivered at 13:31:04 UTC, 54 minutes 41 seconds later. It came back with an Excel workbook, a Word memo, a PDF memo and a deck. It recorded 1,402 fact rows.
What the analyst built without the documents
| Line | Figure | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Leasable area | 9,184 SF | Two suites, 6,540 SF and 2,644 SF |
| Gross potential rent | $236,488 | $25.75 per SF NNN, the middle of four local asking rents |
| Vacancy and credit loss | $11,824 | 5% |
| Rent collected | $224,664 | |
| NNN recoveries | $97,679 | |
| Effective gross income | $322,343 | |
| Operating expenses | $111,973 | $102,820 of it recoverable |
| Net operating income, year 1 | $210,369 | $21.79 per SF of the 9,653 SF building |
| Net operating income, year 5 | $232,208 | 2.5% yearly growth |
| Debt service | $159,569 | 60% loan to value, 6.5%, 25 years |
| Debt service coverage | 1.32x | |
| Cash flow after debt service, year 1 | $50,801 | |
| Levered return at the tested entry price | 8.49%, 1.46x | 5-year hold, 7% exit cap |
Every line in the table carries its arithmetic in the run's records. The net operating income, for example, is recorded as $322,342.87 of effective gross income less $111,973.44 of operating expenses. You can recompute it in a minute, and that is the first test of any pro forma.
What it refused to fill
Two of the cells matter more than any figure above.
- The T-12 sheet. It says: no trailing-12 operating statement was provided, so the sheet holds no actuals. The income in the workbook is a market-rent pro forma, and the owner's T-12 and rent roll would replace it. The sheet was left empty and the reason was written on it.
- Occupancy. The cell is marked missing: no rent roll, so the occupancy of the second suite is unknown.
Across the whole run the rows split like this.
| Status | Rows |
|---|---|
| Derived | 888 |
| Found | 192 |
| Fact | 57 |
| Assumed | 53 |
| Stated by the client | 1 |
| Missing | 211 |
An analyst that shows 211 missing rows out of 1,402 is easier to trust than one that shows none. A rent roll and T-12 close many of those rows. They do not close the ones about flood zone, zoning district or the tenant's lease terms, and the run says which is which.
It checked the brief against the records
The brief called the building single-tenant. The records showed a building of 9,653 SF with two suites: the clinic's 6,540 SF and a second suite of 2,644 SF, of which only 800 SF had been built out and which had no tenant on record. The run said so at the top of its answer, and it priced the difference:
- With both suites let at market rent, net operating income is $210,369.
- With the second suite empty and only the clinic paying, it is $131,338.
That is a 38% swing in income, found before anyone called a broker. A tool that only reads the documents you give it would have underwritten the single tenant you described. The same run also carried three source conflicts into its red flags, on building area, lot area and building type, and said which figure it used and why.
Its sensitivity tab moved net operating income by 5% and the exit cap rate by 50 basis points, and showed the exit cap and the income level as the two inputs that dominate the levered return. At the tested entry price, every adverse end of that range fell below a 10% return target.
Five tests for any AI analyst that reads a rent roll and T-12
- Give it a deal with a missing document. Does it say what is missing, or does it fill the gap and call it actuals?
- Recompute the net operating income. Every line should state where it came from. If you cannot rebuild the total from its own lines, you cannot defend it to a lender.
- Count the missing rows. A model with no gaps has either seen everything or hidden something. Ask for the count.
- Compare its description with yours. Tell it the property is single-tenant when it is not. Does it correct you?
- Give it your worst rent roll. Mixed layouts, an unstated rent period, concessions in a notes column. The six checks for rent roll extraction are the place to start.
What this run does not show
This run did not read a rent roll or a T-12, so this page does not claim to show that step. It shows what the analyst does around those documents: the pro forma it builds without them, the rows it leaves open, and the premise it challenges. The reading step is covered by the six checks above, which you can run on your own file.
The numbers are a market-rent screen, not a bid. The run itself says that the clinic's contract rent, term and guarantor decide the price more than anything else, and that nobody should rely on a return before reading the lease.
Try it on a deal of yours
Send an address, and a rent roll and T-12 if you have them. Titleman draws on 2,100+ sources and returns the workbook, the memo and a list of what it could not read. To see a pro forma on a deal you are working on, request a demo. For the wider picture of what is in an underwriting package, see what a commercial underwriting package includes, and for the choice against a cash-flow modelling tool, see choosing an ARGUS alternative.
Frequently asked questions
What are alternatives to Enodo for underwriting a property from a rent roll and T-12? The tools that come up for this job do different parts of it: document extraction, multifamily scoring, lender marketplaces and spreadsheets. Titleman is an AI analyst that builds the pro forma, the cash flow and the returns in one run and shows its sources. Test any of them on your own worst rent roll and T-12, not on a demo file.
Is there an AI analyst that reads a rent roll and T-12 and builds a pro forma? Yes, this category exists. What separates the tools is what they do when a document is missing or wrong. In the run on this page no rent roll and no T-12 was supplied, and the analyst built a market-rent pro forma, marked the T-12 sheet as holding no actuals, and said the owner's documents would replace its figures.
What should an AI pro forma do when the T-12 is missing? Build income from market rent, label every figure as derived from market rent, show a floor case, and leave the actuals sheet empty with the reason written on it. It should never fill a T-12 with estimates and call them actuals.
How do you check an AI pro forma? Recompute net operating income from its own lines, check that each line states where it came from, count the rows it marked missing, and compare its description of the property with your own. The run on this page was checked in that way.
Written by the Titleman team with AI assistance (Claude). Reviewed by the Titleman review desk. Figures read from the run's own records on 15 October 2026; the run was made on a Titleman QA account. Other vendors are named only to say what job they are known for; we have not tested them.