LAST REVIEWED: JUNE 2026
TL;DR
The best robo advisors UK investors use in 2026 differ mainly on annual fees, the number of risk levels they offer and whether portfolios are actively managed or held to a fixed allocation. Nutmeg (owned by JP Morgan Chase) and Wealthify (owned by Aviva) are the largest names, while Moneyfarm, Moneybox, Wealthsimple and InvestEngine compete on cost, advice access and minimum investment.
KEY FACTS
- A robo-advisor builds and runs a diversified portfolio for you based on an online suitability questionnaire governed by FCA rules in COBS 9A.
- Typical all-in cost runs from around 0.25% to 0.90% a year once the platform fee and underlying fund charges are added together.
- InvestEngine charges no platform fee on its managed portfolios; Nutmeg and Wealthify charge tiered management fees on top of fund costs.
- Minimum investment ranges from £1 (Moneybox round-ups) to £500 (Moneyfarm) at the time of writing.
- Every provider here is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and covered by the FSCS up to £85,000 for eligible claims.
- Most offer a Stocks and Shares ISA, a General Investment Account and a personal pension (SIPP), plus ethical or socially responsible portfolio options.
What a robo-advisor actually is
A robo-advisor is an online investment service that decides what to hold on your behalf, places the trades and keeps the portfolio balanced over time, all through an app or website rather than a face-to-face adviser. The phrase is slightly misleading: most of these services do not give regulated personal advice at all. Instead they offer what the regulator calls a discretionary managed service or a guided non-advised service, where you answer questions and the provider maps you to a ready-made portfolio.
Underneath the friendly app, the engine is usually a set of low-cost index funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) spread across global shares, bonds and sometimes property or cash. The provider chooses the mix, handles rebalancing when markets drift, and reinvests dividends. For someone who does not want to pick individual funds, this removes most of the day-to-day decisions while keeping costs far below a traditional wealth manager.
The trade-off is control and cost layering. You cannot hand-pick every holding, and you pay two fees that stack on top of each other: the robo-advisor's own management or platform fee, and the ongoing charges figure (OCF) of the underlying funds. Reading those two numbers together is the single most important thing when comparing providers, which is why the fee table below shows the combined figure rather than the headline rate alone.
Robo-advisors sit between two older options. At one end is doing it yourself on a fund supermarket, picking and rebalancing your own holdings, which is cheapest but demands time and confidence. At the other end is a traditional independent financial adviser or discretionary wealth manager, who gives a full personal recommendation but typically charges an initial fee plus an ongoing percentage that can run well above 1% a year. A robo-advisor automates the middle ground: it does the construction and maintenance for you at a fraction of adviser cost, while stopping short of a bespoke financial plan. That positioning is why the format has grown quickly among younger UK investors and ISA savers who want a hands-off but regulated home for their money.
How the suitability questionnaire works under COBS 9A
When you open an account, the provider asks a series of questions: your age, your goals, how long you plan to invest, your income and savings, your experience with investing and how you would react if your pot fell sharply in value. This is not marketing. It is a regulatory requirement. The FCA's Conduct of Business Sourcebook, chapter 9A (COBS 9A), implements the suitability rules that came from MiFID II, and it obliges any firm making a personal recommendation or managing investments for you to assess whether the service is appropriate.
COBS 9A requires the firm to gather enough information to understand three things: your knowledge and experience, your financial situation including your ability to bear losses, and your investment objectives including your attitude to risk. The portfolio you are offered must be consistent with all three. A provider cannot put a cautious investor with a short time horizon into an aggressive all-equity portfolio simply because the customer ticked a box, and it has to keep that assessment under review.
For non-advised robo services, the firm still has to run an appropriateness or suitability check depending on how the service is structured. In practice this is why two people answering the questionnaire differently will be steered into different risk levels even on the same platform. It is worth answering honestly rather than gaming the questions to reach a higher-return portfolio, because the assessment exists to stop you holding something you would panic-sell in a downturn.
Two answers tend to move the result the most. The first is your time horizon: money you will need within a few years should not sit in a heavily equity-weighted portfolio, because there may not be time to recover from a market fall before you withdraw. The second is your capacity for loss, which is different from your appetite for risk. Appetite is how much volatility you say you can stomach emotionally, while capacity is how much you could afford to lose and still meet your goals. COBS 9A obliges the firm to weigh both, so an investor who feels brave but has no financial cushion should expect to be guided towards a more cautious portfolio than their answers about appetite alone might suggest. Providers also re-run or remind you to review the assessment periodically, because the suitable answer changes as you age, approach a goal or see your circumstances shift.
Fee comparison: management fee, fund cost and total cost
Fees are where robo-advisors separate most clearly. The headline management fee is only half the story, because the underlying funds carry their own OCF that comes straight out of returns. The table below brings both together so the total annual drag is visible. Figures are indicative of standard managed portfolios at the time of writing and exclude any market-spread or transaction costs; check each provider's current fee page before opening an account.
| Provider | Management / platform fee | Fund cost (OCF) | Indicative total a year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutmeg | Around 0.75% up to £100,000, then about 0.35% above; lower on fixed-allocation | Around 0.20% to 0.35% | Roughly 0.45% to 1.10% |
| Wealthify | Flat 0.60% on all balances | Around 0.16% (original) to 0.70% (ethical) | Roughly 0.76% to 1.30% |
| Moneyfarm | Tiered from about 0.75% down to 0.35% as balance grows | Around 0.20% plus a small market spread | Roughly 0.55% to 1.00% |
| Moneybox | Around 0.45% platform fee plus a small monthly subscription | Around 0.12% to 0.30% | Roughly 0.57% to 0.75% plus subscription |
| Wealthsimple | Around 0.50% to 0.70% depending on tier | Around 0.20% | Roughly 0.70% to 0.90% |
| InvestEngine | 0% platform fee on managed portfolios | Around 0.12% to 0.25% | Roughly 0.12% to 0.25% |
The pattern is clear: a flat or zero platform fee combined with cheap index funds keeps the total drag low, while ethical and actively managed portfolios cost more because the underlying funds are pricier. On a £20,000 pot, the difference between a 0.30% and a 1.10% all-in cost is around £160 a year, which compounds heavily over a couple of decades. Cheaper is not automatically better, though, because some of the extra fee buys human advice access or a more actively managed approach, covered below.
Risk profiles: how many levels and managed versus fixed
The number of risk levels a provider offers determines how finely your portfolio can be tuned to the answers you gave in the suitability questionnaire. More levels mean a closer fit between your stated attitude to risk and the actual asset mix. The second axis is whether the portfolio is fully managed, meaning a team actively shifts the holdings in response to markets, or held to a fixed allocation that is only rebalanced back to its target weights.
| Provider | Risk levels | Style | Ethical / SRI option |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutmeg | 10 risk levels | Fixed-allocation and fully managed options | Yes (socially responsible range) |
| Wealthify | 5 risk levels (Cautious to Adventurous) | Fully managed | Yes (ethical plans) |
| Moneyfarm | 7 risk levels | Actively managed, plus fixed-allocation range | Yes (ESG portfolios) |
| Moneybox | 3 starting options plus tracker funds | Fixed-allocation tracker portfolios | Yes (socially responsible funds) |
| Wealthsimple | 3 broad risk profiles | Fixed-allocation, rebalanced | Yes (SRI portfolios) |
| InvestEngine | Several Growth / Income risk bands | Fixed-allocation ETF portfolios | Yes (ESG portfolio range) |
Nutmeg's ten levels give the most granular fit, which suits investors who want their portfolio to track their questionnaire answers closely. Wealthify's five plain-English bands suit people who find a long sliding scale intimidating. A fully managed portfolio aims to react to markets and may justify a higher fee, but evidence that active management consistently beats a simple rebalanced index portfolio after costs is mixed, so the lower-cost fixed-allocation route appeals to fee-conscious investors.
Fully managed versus fixed-allocation portfolios
A fully managed portfolio is one where the provider's investment team actively changes the asset mix, tilting towards or away from regions, sectors or bond types as their view of markets shifts. The pitch is that human oversight can reduce losses in a downturn or capture opportunities. The cost is a higher management fee and the risk that the active calls do not pay off.
A fixed-allocation portfolio sets target weights, for example 60% global shares and 40% bonds, and simply rebalances back to those targets when markets push them out of line. There is no attempt to time markets. This keeps fees low and is transparent, because you always know roughly what you hold. Most of the cheapest options in the fee table, including InvestEngine and Wealthsimple, sit in this camp, and Nutmeg and Moneyfarm offer fixed-allocation ranges alongside their managed ones.
Neither approach is inherently superior. Fixed allocation removes the risk of poor manager decisions and keeps costs minimal, while managed portfolios offer the chance, not the guarantee, of a smoother ride. The decision usually comes down to how much you are willing to pay for active oversight and whether you believe it adds value after fees.
A useful sense check is to look at what each style actually does in a falling market. A fixed-allocation portfolio will let its equity weighting drift down as shares fall, then buy back into shares when it rebalances, which mechanically means buying when prices are lower. A managed portfolio may instead choose to reduce risk further during the fall, aiming to limit the loss but potentially missing part of the recovery. Both are defensible, and over a full market cycle the cost difference often matters more than the strategy difference, because fees are certain while the value added by active calls is not. For long-term investors holding through several cycles, the compounding effect of an extra half a percent in annual charges can outweigh a great deal of tactical cleverness.
Minimum investment and account types
Minimum investment is often the deciding factor for newer investors. Some providers let you start with the price of a coffee, while others want a meaningful lump sum before they will manage money for you. The table below shows the entry point for each provider's standard managed account at the time of writing.
| Provider | Minimum to start | Main owner |
|---|---|---|
| Nutmeg | £500 (£100 for some products) | JP Morgan Chase |
| Wealthify | £1 | Aviva |
| Moneyfarm | £500 | Independent (backed by Poste Italiane and others) |
| Moneybox | £1 (round-ups available) | Independent |
| Wealthsimple | Low, effectively from a few pounds | Independent (Power Corporation backing) |
| InvestEngine | £100 | Independent |
Moneybox and Wealthify are the easiest to start with thanks to £1 entry and, in Moneybox's case, automatic round-ups that sweep spare change into the account. Nutmeg and Moneyfarm set a higher bar at £500, reflecting a slightly more affluent target customer. Ownership matters for reassurance rather than returns: Nutmeg sits inside JP Morgan Chase and Wealthify inside Aviva, two of the largest financial groups operating in the UK, while the others remain independent or are backed by overseas investors.
Provider differentiators at a glance
Beyond fees and minimums, each platform has a distinct character. Nutmeg, the longest-established UK robo-advisor and now part of JP Morgan Chase, offers the widest spread of risk levels and a fixed-fee financial advice add-on. Wealthify, owned by Aviva, keeps things simple with five plans and a single flat fee, and integrates with Aviva's wider pension and protection products.
Moneyfarm pairs an actively managed approach with access to human investment consultants, which appeals to people who want a person to talk to without paying full advice fees. Moneybox built its name on round-ups and a strong Lifetime ISA offering, making it popular with first-time buyers saving towards a deposit. Wealthsimple emphasises a clean app experience and socially responsible options, while InvestEngine stands out by charging nothing for its managed portfolios, recovering its costs only through the cheap ETFs it uses and its separate DIY service.
Ethical or socially responsible investing (SRI) is now standard across all six. These portfolios screen out or down-weight sectors such as tobacco, weapons and fossil fuels and tilt towards companies scoring better on environmental, social and governance (ESG) measures. They typically cost more because the specialist funds carry higher charges, as the fee table shows for Wealthify's ethical range, so an investor choosing the ethical route should expect a slightly higher total cost.
One practical caution applies to all of them: the definition of ethical or ESG is not standardised, and what one provider screens out another may keep in. The FCA introduced anti-greenwashing rules and a sustainability disclosure regime to make these labels more honest, but the underlying holdings still vary, so it is worth reading the fund factsheet rather than trusting the label alone. An investor who cares deeply about a specific exclusion, such as fossil fuels or armaments, should confirm that the portfolio actually delivers it.
How to choose between them
The right robo-advisor depends on what you are optimising for rather than any single winner. Someone prioritising the lowest possible cost will look hardest at InvestEngine's zero platform fee and Moneybox's tracker range. Someone who values a large, well-capitalised parent and a wide choice of risk levels may prefer Nutmeg inside JP Morgan Chase or Wealthify inside Aviva. An investor who wants occasional human contact without paying full advice fees is the natural audience for Moneyfarm's investment consultants.
A sensible process is to start from the account type you need, then the minimum you can commit, then the cost, and only then the brand. If you are saving a house deposit, the Lifetime ISA and round-up features at Moneybox may matter more than a fractional fee difference. If you are investing a redundancy lump sum for fifteen years, the long-run fee drag deserves the most weight. Whatever you choose, confirm the firm's status on the FCA Register before transferring money, keep your contributions regular, and resist checking the balance daily, because the behaviour gap between what portfolios return and what investors actually earn is driven largely by ill-timed buying and selling.
Frequently asked questions
Are robo-advisors safe in the UK?
The providers covered here are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, and eligible investments are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme up to £85,000 if the firm fails. That protection covers firm failure, not investment losses: the value of your portfolio can still fall as well as rise with markets.
What is the difference between a robo-advisor and financial advice?
Most robo-advisors run your money on a discretionary or guided basis without giving a personal recommendation, so they are not the same as regulated financial advice. Some, such as Nutmeg and Moneyfarm, offer a separate paid advice service. If you need a personal recommendation tailored to your full circumstances, look for a firm offering regulated advice under the FCA rules in COBS 9A.
How much do I need to start with a robo-advisor?
It varies widely. Wealthify and Moneybox let you start from around £1, InvestEngine from about £100, and Nutmeg and Moneyfarm typically require £500. Lower minimums make it easier to test a service before committing larger sums.
Why do robo-advisors ask so many questions before I invest?
The questionnaire fulfils the FCA's suitability requirements in COBS 9A, which derive from MiFID II. The firm has to understand your knowledge, financial situation and attitude to risk so it can place you in a portfolio that genuinely fits, rather than one that could leave you exposed to losses you cannot bear.
Which robo-advisor has the lowest fees?
On the figures in this article, InvestEngine has the lowest all-in cost because it charges no platform fee on its managed portfolios, leaving only the underlying ETF charges of roughly 0.12% to 0.25% a year. Remember that the cheapest option does not always include features such as human advice access or active management.
Can I hold a robo-advisor portfolio inside an ISA or pension?
Yes. Most of these providers offer a Stocks and Shares ISA, a General Investment Account and a personal pension (SIPP), and some offer a Lifetime ISA. Holding the portfolio inside an ISA or pension shelters returns from income and capital gains tax within the relevant annual allowances.
