Why it matters now
The robo-advisor return is the sharpest sword in the competition for market share in digital asset management. After the industry benefited for years from an almost unprecedented bull market, the interest rate turnaround corrections and the volatility of 2023 to 2025 have radically changed the playing field. For board members and partners, the question today is less about historical performance and more about return resilience: How stable do algorithms perform when correlations between asset classes suddenly rise to 1.0?
The central question: What is the return in a bear market worth?
Strategic analyses must go beyond superficial return figures. A robo advisor comparison return without considering risk-adjusted key figures is insufficient for a professional portfolio strategy.
The mathematical benchmark: A classic 60/40 portfolio (stocks/bonds) aims for a nominal return of 5–7% p.a. Executives need to check whether a robo-advisor beats this profile through superior rebalancing or merely passively replicates the market beta. Current data from the end of 2025 shows: 96.9% of the theoretical portfolios of active funds underperformed comparable index mixes over 10 years.
Evidence: The dilemma of the missing performance record
Scientific analyses identify the lack of a track record in real crisis cycles as one of the four central obstacles to the trust of institutional investors:
- The time series problem: Most robo-advisors lack a reliable performance record for scenarios like 2008, in which global indices recorded drawdowns of up to -50%. Current models have so far only experienced “short shocks” that have often been neutralized by central bank interventions.
- The Sharpe ratio paradox: While the net returns often seem convincing, Sharpe ratios (risk-return ratios) often show weaknesses. Current market studies show that many providers in 2024/25 were below the results of pure ETF benchmarks. The cost advantage of the RAs (often 0.35% to 1.05% p.a. all-in) must first compensate for this deficit.
The emotional breaking point: Research shows that digital customer profiling is often not sufficient to cushion panic reactions. Although approx. 60% of investors can imagine using it, 25% of non-users explicitly stated “lack of trust in the mechanism” as the reason. Without a human anchor, this leads to procyclical bad decisions.
Practical implications & steps: Deconstructing returns
Executives should reassess the competition’s return argument based on risk adjustment:
From peak to drawdown: When comparing the robo-advisor return, focus on the maximum drawdown. A moderate portfolio often lost significant value in the interest rate turnaround corrections of 2022–2024. Regenerative power (recovery) is more important today than short-term peak values.
Analysis of the cost-return ratio: With a gross return of 7%, classic advice (approx. 2.5% costs) leads to a net return of 4.5%. A robo-advisor (approx. 1.0% costs) achieves 6.0%. Over 30 years, this advantage adds up to a difference in assets of approx. 150,000 to 250,000 euros with a starting capital of 50,000 euros.
Hybrid Wealth Management as a safety net: Position human advice as a “behavioral coach.” Since 52% of investors believe they can best manage crises themselves, the value of the advisor lies in moderating this misjudgment. Hybrid models combine digital efficiency with personal access for fees between 0.50% and 1.20% p.a.
Robo-Advisor Return: Conclusion & Outlook
The Robo-Advisor return is a convincing acquisition tool in the market environment of 2025, but remains an uncertain foundation without human correction. Real stability has been shown where technological efficiency has been combined with human risk management. Anyone who wants to secure long-term asset retention (AUM retention) must close the gap in the technological performance record with excellent, hybrid support models.