Methodology
How we compare robo-advisors — published in full.
Where the numbers live
Fees and account minimums are on the site. Return figures are not published as live numbers — they are emailed in the report. Returns in the report are comparable estimates from each advisor's published performance, shown net of advisory fees so you can compare them. They are for comparison — not a forecast, and they will not match any one account. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is educational, not personalized advice. Request the report.
1. Comparable return estimates (emailed)
No two robos publish performance the same way. We assemble a comparable, net-of-advisory-fee estimate from each firm's public moderate-risk model-portfolio figures. That takes some judgment (which composite, how to net a fee), so treat the result as a comparison tool, not as an audited return and not as what any one client earned. If a disclosure is too thin to compare fairly, we say so rather than fill a gap.
Time-weighted (not money-weighted): deposit and withdrawal timing can't inflate or deflate the figure, so advisors are compared on investment performance alone — the GIPS standard. ETF expense ratios are already in fund NAVs; we do not subtract them a second time. Cash allocations (for example Schwab's cash sleeve) are already in the portfolio return. These figures are not after-tax.
2. True cost
Advisory fee plus the weighted expense ratios of the underlying funds — the all-in annual cost of the portfolio. Flat monthly fees (e.g. Acorns) are converted to an effective percentage at a $5,000 balance for comparability. The public table sorts by published advisory fee.
3. Accessibility
Account minimums and onboarding friction. A $0-minimum advisor you can fund with a small first deposit scores above a $5,000-minimum one, all else equal.
Time-weighted returns, explained
A return figure is only comparable if everyone computes it the same way. We use time-weighted returns: the measurement period is split at every deposit or withdrawal, the return of each sub-period is computed on the money actually invested during it, and the sub-periods are geometrically linked:
TWR = (1 + R₁) × (1 + R₂) × … × (1 + Rₙ) − 1
Cash-flow timing can't inflate or deflate the result — which is why the CFA Institute's GIPS standards require it for comparing managers. Contrast it with a money-weighted return (IRR), which blends the manager's performance with the investor's timing luck. For ranking advisors against each other, only time-weighted figures are fair.
What we don't do
- No pay-to-rank placements — commissions never affect scores.
- No personalized advice — we don't know your finances.
- We exclude discontinued products (e.g. Ellevest's robo, discontinued April 2025).
- We don't publish live return percentages on the site.