Compare Yomoni, Nalo and Finary to a new model: Bubble as a chat‑first quantitative copilot that lets you delegate execution, stay in control, and swap % fees for a simple flat subscription.
Traditional Robo‑Advisors vs Quantitative Platforms: 2025 Guide
In 2025, “automated investing” no longer means just one thing.
For most people, the landscape used to look like this:
- either do everything yourself in a brokerage account or PEA/CTO;
- or delegate to a player like Yomoni or Nalo via a life insurance contract or managed account.
More recently, new models have appeared:
- quantitative decision‑support platforms;
- aggregators / wealth copilots like Finary;
- chat‑first copilot experiences like Bubble, which sit somewhere between the two worlds.
This guide has one simple goal:
- clarify the main philosophies that now coexist;
- place Yomoni and Nalo clearly in the first;
- explain what we mean by a “quantitative platform” and a “wealth copilot”;
- show where Bubble sits in that landscape, without overstating it;
- help you see which camp feels most natural for you.
The point is not to crown a “winner”, but to give you a framework to choose the category that fits how you want to invest.
1. Two (now three) philosophies: delegation, aggregation, or empowerment
Behind all the jargon, the same questions always show up:
- Who makes day‑to‑day investment decisions?
- Who holds the accounts and executes trades?
- How are fees calculated?
1.1. Philosophy 1: the traditional robo‑advisor (“Do it for me”)
This is the approach used by players like Yomoni or Nalo:
- you fill in a questionnaire (horizon, projects, risk tolerance);
- an algorithm plus a management team define a target allocation;
- trades are executed automatically inside accounts they administer or custody (life insurance, PER, discretionary mandates).
Typical features:
- Strong delegation: you do not validate each trade;
- Custody model: assets are held in contracts overseen by the robo‑advisor and/or the insurer;
- Percentage‑of‑assets fees: for example 0.85–1.6% per year, charged on AUM;
- Tax wrappers: PEA, assurance‑vie, PER, etc. are often well integrated.
This philosophy suits people who want to:
- avoid handling day‑to‑day decisions;
- benefit from tax‑optimised wrappers and a single point of contact;
- accept paying a percentage of their wealth for that service.
1.2. Philosophy 2: the quantitative platform (“Help me decide”)
Here the idea is different:
- the platform does not custody your accounts;
- it provides analytical tools: multi‑factor scoring, backtests, risk tools;
- it generates allocations and draft order baskets, but you keep control over execution through your brokers (IBKR, Saxo, etc.).
Typical features:
- Decision support, not discretionary management;
- Accounts at your brokers, in your name;
- Fixed‑fee subscription (SaaS model) instead of a percentage of assets;
- Higher transparency: backtests, explanation of signals, decision logs.
This model is a better fit if you:
- want to stay in the driver’s seat;
- are willing to spend a few minutes to review and validate proposals;
- prefer paying for the tools rather than a percentage of your assets.
1.3. Philosophy 3: the aggregator / wealth copilot
A third family has grown, with Finary as a good example:
- the tool connects to your various banks, brokers, savings plans, real‑estate accounts;
- you get a consolidated view of your wealth and cash flows;
- the platform offers analytics, alerts, and sometimes recommendations.
Typical features:
- Centralisation: a single dashboard for all your accounts;
- Wealth analytics: asset allocation, fee tracking, performance tracking;
- Mixed monetisation: subscriptions, premium features, sometimes partnerships / referral fees.
The wealth‑copilot model mainly answers:
“Where is all my money, and how is it evolving?”
Whereas a more quantitative platform tends to answer:
“What should I do now with this specific portfolio, given my risk profile?”
Bubble sits somewhere between these two worlds:
- like a quantitative platform, it connects to brokerage accounts and uses quantitative data and models;
- like a wealth copilot, the interface is chat‑first: you talk, ask questions, request simulations;
- unlike a pure aggregator, Bubble focuses primarily on portfolio construction and adjustment, not exhaustive aggregation of every account.
2. Why finance is becoming a “commodity” (and why that helps you)
Three building blocks that used to be scarce and expensive are now widely available:
Information
- Market data (real‑time or delayed);
- quality educational content;
- factor research, manager letters, specialist newsletters.
Infrastructure
- Low‑cost online brokers;
- global index ETFs with very low fees;
- market APIs and straightforward integrations.
Intelligence
- AI can summarise reports, explain portfolios, compare strategies;
- what used to require hours of manual work can now be automated.
As a result:
- the “raw materials” of investing (data, execution, basic models) are increasingly standardised;
- value shifts towards service design: aligning incentives, being transparent, leaving control with the client.
In this context, it is natural to see:
- actors who continue to sell a turnkey service (robo‑advisors);
- others who focus on tooling and guidance (quantitative platforms);
- and aggregators / wealth copilots primarily focused on global visibility and tracking.
3. Yomoni and Nalo: two French robo‑advisor examples
3.1. Yomoni in brief
Strengths:
- strong expertise on French tax wrappers (PEA, life insurance, PER);
- track record and recognised brand;
- access to human advisors (wealth planning).
Things to keep in mind:
- total fees often around 1.6%/year (combining contract, management and ETF costs);
- a possible “black box” feeling for some clients: the logic behind trades is not always detailed;
- entry ticket (typically from €1,000) which can discourage very small amounts.
Yomoni is well suited if:
- your priority is tax optimisation and delegation;
- you want a single contact for PEA / life insurance / PER;
- you accept percentage‑based fees in exchange for this level of convenience.
3.2. Nalo in brief
Strengths:
- strongly educational positioning (life‑goals framework, clear content);
- detailed reporting, visualisation of different “project pockets”;
- mix of life insurance / real estate / ETFs depending on the case.
Things to keep in mind:
- tiered fee structure around 0.85–1.65%/year depending on amounts and holdings;
- minimum investment (usually around €1,000);
- some processes are still relatively manual.
Nalo is a good fit if:
- you like a “life‑goals” narrative;
- you are starting out and want more hand‑holding;
- you are comfortable with percentage fees as long as the experience is smooth.
Together, these two players illustrate the “Do it for me” philosophy:
- you delegate implementation;
- you focus on your goals (retirement, property, children’s education, etc.).
4. Finary: the aggregator / wealth copilot
Finary is a good illustration of the wealth‑copilot family:
- it connects to multiple banks, brokers, savings plans, and real‑estate accounts;
- it aggregates data to provide a 360° view of your wealth;
- it offers tools to analyse fees, asset allocation, and performance over time;
- it provides recommendations and content to optimise your overall set‑up.
What Finary does very well:
- give a big‑picture view to investors whose money is spread across many institutions;
- raise awareness about the impact of fees, concentration, and allocation drift;
- act as a central dashboard to monitor your wealth over time.
On the cost side, Finary and Bubble do not really play in the same category:
- a wealth aggregator has to maintain dozens of connectors, store history for all your accounts, offer a rich cockpit, and handle many edge cases;
- it is natural that pricing reflects that wide scope.
Bubble, by contrast, limits itself to your brokerage portfolios and concentrates its costs on AI, market data, and the quantitative engine:
- our subscriptions mostly reflect that technical infrastructure, not commissions tied to your asset size;
- we aim to stay at the price level of a specialised tool, rather than a full wealth cockpit.
What Finary is not primarily designed for:
- acting as a full portfolio‑construction engine based on deep quantitative models;
- tightly piloting allocations between pockets via a quant engine integrated with broker APIs.
Put differently:
- Finary answers “Where is my money, and what does it look like overall?”;
- a more quant‑oriented platform answers “What should I specifically do with this portfolio, given my risk and horizon?”.
5. Quantitative platforms (including Bubble): a newer category
Quantitative decision‑support platforms focus on:
- constructing and adjusting portfolios;
- based on structured market data and quantitative models.
Common principles:
- they work on well‑defined portfolios (for example: a specific brokerage account);
- they apply models:
- multi‑factor scoring (momentum, quality, valuation, risk, correlations);
- backtests over 10–20 years;
- rebalancing and risk‑management rules;
- they propose concrete allocations and order baskets ready to execute.
Where does Bubble sit?
Bubble is not a traditional robo‑advisor, and it is not “just” a quant platform either:
- on the engine side, Bubble relies on quantitative data and models and connects to brokers via APIs to generate orders;
- on the interface side, Bubble is chat‑first:
- you ask questions in natural language (“what do you think of this portfolio?”, “what if I went from 60/40 to 70/30?”);
- the AI explains choices, shows backtests, and helps you arbitrate;
- on the business‑model side, Bubble is SaaS‑oriented:
- typical plans around €0–10/month as an order of magnitude,
- no percentage‑based fees on assets.
This changes two important things:
Tech‑ and cost‑orientation
- pricing mainly reflects infrastructure costs (compute, data, APIs);
- the goal is to stay well below the levels of percentage fees charged by delegated management.
Copilot, not manager
- Bubble never has custody of your assets;
- each proposal is explained and requires your validation;
- AI is used to make quantitative models understandable, not to decide in a black box on your behalf.
Personalisation through empowerment, not delegation
Many services call what they do “personalised” because they tweak a profile behind a black box:
“Tell us your age and a few answers, we’ll handle everything. Don’t worry about what’s inside.”
With Bubble, personalisation mostly comes from the fact that:
- you can ask your own questions (“am I taking too much risk on tech?”, “how do I smooth this portfolio?”);
- the AI answers in your language, taking into account your horizon, constraints, and existing pockets;
- you accept or reject each adjustment, so proposals evolve towards your actual preferences, not a generic profile.
In other words, Bubble does not try to “mother” investors.
The assumption is that with the right explanations and tools, you are capable of deciding for yourself.
AI is there to clarify and document your decisions, not to confiscate your judgement.
Delegation, yes – but with the option to understand
At Bubble, we also know that most people ultimately want to do nothing day‑to‑day:
- you want things to run and be rebalanced when needed;
- you want risks to be monitored;
- and you do not want to spend evenings in Excel.
The whole point of the product is to make that level of practical delegation possible through AI, without treating you like you cannot understand:
- if you just want to review and click “approve”, you can;
- if you want to know why a sleeve was increased or reduced, you can ask your agent;
- if you want to change the rules (“de‑risk more slowly”, “favour dividends more”), the agent adapts to your instructions.
AI is there to execute your intent, not to impose its own.
And we want all of this to be possible at minimal cost:
- no commissions because a human or a robot “knows something you do not as an investor”,
- but a clear subscription that mainly reflects technical costs (data, compute, APIs),
- so that most of the performance stays where it belongs: in your pocket, not in fees.
6. Robo‑advisor, aggregator, quantitative platform: structured comparison
Here is a summary of the philosophical differences between the three families:
| Criterion |
Traditional robo‑advisor |
Aggregator / wealth copilot |
Quantitative platform (including Bubble) |
| Main role |
Manage on your behalf |
Centralise and analyse your wealth |
Help you build / adjust a portfolio |
| Control |
Delegation |
You decide, little operational guidance |
You approve every change |
| Accounts |
Custody at provider/insurer |
Many institutions aggregated |
At your brokers, in your name |
| Fees |
Percentage of assets |
Subscriptions + sometimes commissions |
Fixed subscription / SaaS |
| Transparency |
Limited on methodology |
Good on big‑picture view |
Strong on methods, backtests, logs |
| Tax wrappers |
Strong (PEA, life insurance, PER) |
Depends on connected institutions |
Mostly brokerage / standard accounts |
| Time required |
Very low |
Low (consultation) |
Low to moderate (read + validate) |
| Personalisation |
Standard profile + fund basket |
Global view + some alerts |
Ongoing dialogue that adapts to your questions and decisions |
This table does not say “good vs bad”; it distinguishes three different answers to:
“What do I need most right now: someone to manage for me, someone to help me see clearly, or someone to help me decide?”
7. How to choose: a few simple questions
Beyond fee comparisons, it helps to ask yourself:
How do I feel about control?
- Do I want to delegate fully, or keep a systematic say?
Do I mainly need global visibility?
- Is my main problem seeing all my wealth in one place, or deciding what to do with one specific portfolio?
What is my horizon and current wealth?
- For larger portfolios, the long‑term impact of percentage fees can be significant over 10–20 years;
- for smaller amounts, access to solid portfolio‑construction tools can be a strong way to build skills over time.
Do I need specific tax wrappers?
- Do I absolutely need life insurance / PER / PEA for this pocket, or is a standard brokerage account acceptable here?
In practice:
- if you want a turnkey life‑insurance contract and do not want to touch implementation, a robo‑advisor makes sense;
- if you mainly want to see clearly across all your accounts, an aggregator like Finary is very well suited;
- if you want to understand, test strategies, keep control over execution and pay a software‑style subscription, a quantitative platform like Bubble is more aligned.
8. In summary
The market is no longer just “traditional bank vs robo‑advisor”.
Three broad families now coexist:
Traditional robo‑advisors (Yomoni, Nalo, etc.)
- you delegate management and custody;
- you pay percentage‑based fees on assets;
- you prioritise convenience and tax wrappers.
Aggregators / wealth copilots (Finary, etc.)
- you centralise the view of your accounts;
- you monitor allocation, fees, and performance;
- you keep control over decisions, with better information.
Quantitative decision‑support platforms (Bubble and others)
- you keep brokerage accounts in your name;
- you pay fixed fees for access to tools and methodology;
- you prioritise transparency, understanding, and control.
All three models have a place.
The key is to know what kind of relationship you want with your investments:
- a delegation relationship;
- a dashboard and tracking relationship;
- or a quantitative copilot relationship.
Once that is clear, comparing fees, features, and user experience across specific players becomes much easier.
