The hard part of this move is not the export. It is the difference in how the two systems think. Salentica works in client record records; HubSpot works in contact records. Get that mapping wrong and every report built on it afterwards is wrong too. This page covers the field map, what does not survive, what it costs, and the reconciliation step that decides whether anyone trusts HubSpot in month two.
The two systems, side by side
| Salentica | HubSpot | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Client record | Contact |
| Grouping | Household and relationship structures | Company associations |
| Activity history | Platform-native activities plus Salentica workflow | Engagements: notes, calls, emails, meetings |
| Documents | Platform files or a connected DMS | Attachments on records, plus the file manager |
| Getting data out | Platform export tooling, which differs between the Salesforce and Microsoft editions. | CSV export per object and a well-documented API. |
| Who administers it | A named platform administrator. | None, though marketing usually owns it. |
| Pricing | Custom quoted. | Free tier through enterprise seats. |
What breaks
- Salentica works in client record records and HubSpot works in contact records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail.
- Grouping changes: Household and relationship structures becomes Company associations. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load.
- Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Salentica stores it as platform-native activities plus salentica workflow; HubSpot expects engagements: notes, calls, emails, meetings.
- Logic held in Apex, Flows and validation rules leaves no trace in any export. Read it out of the org before you decommission it.
- Automations, reports, dashboards and permissions never transfer. Budget them as build work.
- Every connected system has to be repointed and retested: the DMS, billing, e-signature and the shared inbox.
Known hazards on each side
Leaving Salentica:
- Which edition you are on changes the extract entirely, so confirm it before scoping.
- Workflow and service models do not transfer to systems without an equivalent object.
- Custom fields added over years of use are rarely documented anywhere but the org itself.
Arriving in HubSpot:
- Associations between contacts, companies and deals are what carry structure, and flat exports lose them.
- Marketing email and workflow history does not migrate to a vertical system.
- Property names drift over time because anyone can create them.
The field map
| Concept | In Salentica | In HubSpot | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary record | Client record | Contact | Different shape. Decide the mapping before any data moves. |
| Grouping | Household and relationship structures | Company associations | The target groups records differently, so grouping is created rather than copied. |
| Activity history | Platform-native activities plus Salentica workflow | Engagements: notes, calls, emails, meetings | Expect partial fidelity. Types, timestamps and authorship survive; structure often does not. |
| Documents | Platform files or a connected DMS | Attachments on records, plus the file manager | Usually a separate extract and load from the record data. |
| Owner and assignment | Assigned user or advisor fields | Assigned user or team fields | Map departed staff explicitly. Records assigned to nobody disappear from every view. |
| Custom fields | Firm-specific fields added over time | Created to match, or consciously dropped | The audit here is the work. Undocumented fields that reports depend on are the usual surprise. |
Cost and timeline
| Phase | Typical range |
|---|---|
| Data audit and cleanup | $3,000 to $25,000 |
| Migration execution | $5,000 to $50,000 |
| Target configuration | Two to six weeks |
| Ongoing administration | Absorbed by existing operations staff |
The upside of this direction is administrative. Salentica assumes a named platform administrator and HubSpot does not, so the ongoing cost drops as well as the license. The trade is expressiveness: any workflow encoded in the platform has to be rebuilt or given up.
The five phases
- Audit Salentica. Count records per object, find duplicates and orphans, and decide what does not come with you. Get that decision signed off before mapping.
- Map against real records. Use the table above as the starting point, then walk fifty live records field by field.
- Dry run into a HubSpot sandbox. Load the full set, not a sample. Sample loads hide the failures that only appear at volume.
- Cut over on a quiet window. Freeze writes in Salentica, load, repoint every integration, unfreeze. Keep Salentica read-only for at least a quarter.
- Reconcile. Compare HubSpot to Salentica record by record and field by field, and produce a variance report.
The full version of this plan, with the failure evidence behind it, is in the CRM migration playbook.
The compliance clause
The Advisers Act books-and-records rule (17 CFR 275.204-2) survives the migration. A household that lands without its history is a records gap, not a cosmetic issue. Keep the field map, the variance report and the mapping sign-offs with the records, because the decisions you made in phase two are part of the record too.
Where Caddi fits
Caddi does the mechanical half and then keeps doing it. Show it the task once and it reads Salentica, applies your field map, loads HubSpot, and then compares both sides record by record and hands back a variance report you can act on. Because it runs over APIs across your stack, the same agent covers the parts a migration tool ignores: documents filed to the right contact with the right metadata, and the post-cutover hygiene that otherwise becomes someone's Monday.
Caddi automation for these systems: Salentica and HubSpot.
Related migrations
- Clio Grow to HubSpot
- Clio Manage to HubSpot
- Filevine to HubSpot
- HubSpot to Clio Grow
- HubSpot to Clio Manage
- HubSpot to Filevine
Migration without the manual pass
Move and reconcile Salentica into HubSpot
Caddi reads Salentica, applies your field map, loads HubSpot, then compares both sides record by record and reports the variances.
Frequently asked questions
How do you migrate from Salentica to HubSpot?
Audit the Salentica data first, then map fields against fifty real records rather than against the schema, dry run the full set into a HubSpot sandbox, cut over on a quiet window with writes frozen, and reconcile record by record afterwards. Platform export tooling, which differs between the Salesforce and Microsoft editions. HubSpot then needs the records loaded in dependency order, with documents as a separate pass.
What does not transfer from Salentica to HubSpot?
Salentica works in client record records and HubSpot works in contact records. That is a re-modelling exercise, and it is the first decision, not a mapping detail. Grouping changes: Household and relationship structures becomes Company associations. Somebody has to define what a group means in the target before load. Activity history moves with partial fidelity. Salentica stores it as platform-native activities plus salentica workflow; HubSpot expects engagements: notes, calls, emails, meetings.
How long does a Salentica to HubSpot migration take?
Six to twelve weeks is realistic for a clean mid-size move, and three to six months where HubSpot is being implemented at the same time. Firms with years of history in Salentica should budget several weeks of cleanup before any data moves.
Who administers HubSpot afterwards?
None, though marketing usually owns it. That is one of the reasons this move is lighter than a platform migration.
What are the compliance implications for advisory firms?
The Advisers Act books-and-records rule (17 CFR 275.204-2) survives the migration. A gap in client history is a finding, so keep the field map, the variance report and the sign-offs where an examiner can find them.