Robo-advisors in Italy: Are They Worth It Compared to a DIY ETF Portfolio?

The pitch that sounds perfect

Marco is 38, works as an engineer at a mid-sized company and has had 40,000 euros sitting in a current account for almost two years. He has read about ETFs, broadly understands the concept, but the idea of choosing funds, setting up a purchase plan and handling annual rebalancing puts him off. Too much time, too much uncertainty about doing it right.

A colleague mentions Moneyfarm. Fill in a questionnaire, get assigned a portfolio from ten risk profiles, contributions are invested automatically, and the portfolio rebalances without any action required. The annual fee is 0.65% on managed assets, plus the TER of the underlying funds.

The pitch sounds rational. Marco has just one question he cannot yet quite formulate: how much does that 0.65% actually cost over twenty years?

What a robo-advisor actually does

Before comparing costs, it is worth being clear about what a robo-advisor does and does not do.

A robo-advisor builds and rebalances an ETF portfolio based on answers to a risk questionnaire. It is not an active manager: it does not pick individual stocks, does not take bets on market valuations and does not try to time economic cycles. The underlying investment instruments are the same index ETFs available on any retail broker, or institutional share classes of very similar UCITS funds.

The difference from a DIY approach is not in the nature of the assets. It is in the service of construction, automatic allocation, periodic rebalancing and tax reporting. For this service, the robo-advisor charges a management fee on top of the underlying ETF TER.

The Italian robo-advisor landscape in 2026

Active robo-advisors for Italian retail investors are concentrated among a handful of main operators with different fee structures.

Moneyfarm is the largest independent operator in the Italian market. It manages portfolios combining ETFs and proprietary funds, applying a sliding fee scale: 0.75% up to 10,000 euros, 0.65% between 10,000 and 50,000, falling to 0.45% above 500,000. Underlying ETF TERs are charged on top.

Scalable Capital Managed Portfolios offers algorithmically managed portfolios with a pure-ETF focus, integrated into the trading platform. The management fee starts at 0.75% annually in the retail range.

Euclidea targets higher-wealth clients, with investment minimums typically above the entry-level retail range and a fee structure that may include performance-linked components.

Fineco Far (Fineco Asset Management Robo) integrates automated management into the Fineco banking platform, with fees varying by profile and amount.

The total cost of ownership for a robo-advisor managing a 40,000-euro portfolio in Italy typically looks like this:

A self-built ETF portfolio on a broker such as Trade Republic, Scalable Capital (broker mode) or Fineco carries very different costs:

The average gap is approximately 0.7–0.8% per year.

The compounding cost: a calculation on 40,000 euros

A difference of 0.7% per year looks small. Over twenty years, the effect of compounding turns it into something far more concrete.

Assume a gross market return of 7% per year, broadly consistent with long-run historical averages for global equity indices in euros.

Scenario A: DIY ETF portfolio (total cost 0.20% per year, net return 6.80%)

$$FV_A = 40{,}000 \times (1.068)^{20}$$

$$FV_A \approx 40{,}000 \times 3.74 \approx \mathbf{\unicode{x20AC}149{,}600}$$

Scenario B: robo-advisor (total cost 1.00% per year, net return 6.00%)

$$FV_B = 40{,}000 \times (1.060)^{20}$$

$$FV_B \approx 40{,}000 \times 3.21 \approx \mathbf{\unicode{x20AC}128{,}400}$$

Difference: approximately 21,200 euros, equal to 53% of the initial capital invested.

This gap does not come from one scenario outperforming the markets, nor from a different asset class choice. The underlying portfolio is identical in both scenarios: same indices, same geographic exposure, same risk class. The difference is entirely caused by the portion of return absorbed each year by the management fee, compounding over twenty years into a very large sum.

The tax dimension

One genuine advantage of Italian robo-advisors over DIY investing is automated tax management. The main operators (Moneyfarm, Scalable Capital, Fineco Far) operate under the regime amministrato, meaning the intermediary automatically withholds tax on capital gains, handles loss offsetting within its own perimeter and produces the required tax documentation.

This benefit is not exclusive to robo-advisors, however. A DIY investor using an Italian broker in regime amministrato (Trade Republic, Scalable Capital broker, Fineco) gets the same fiscal simplicity without paying a management fee. Most Italian retail brokers offer regime amministrato as standard.

The picture changes for investors using non-Italian brokers under the regime dichiarativo (DEGIRO, Interactive Brokers): in that case, the investor must handle the investment section of their annual tax return independently, with an additional estimated cost of 200 to 500 euros per year for accountant support. On a 40,000-euro portfolio, 300 euros of accountant fees per year represents 0.75% additional cost, which significantly narrows the apparent DIY advantage. This is the scenario where robo-advisors become most economically competitive for smaller portfolios.

When a robo-advisor is worth it

The economic comparison is clear. But it does not mean a robo-advisor is always the wrong choice. There are specific situations where the extra cost is justified.

The investor who would otherwise not invest. For many savers, the bigger risk is not paying 0.7% more in fees: it is leaving money in a current account for another three years while waiting to figure out where to start. If a robo-advisor lowers the entry barrier and gets money invested immediately, the management cost is more than offset by the compounding that would otherwise never have begun.

The investor with a high probability of panic selling. Research in behavioural finance consistently shows that self-directed retail investors tend to sell during market downturns, reducing their effective return by 2 to 3 percentage points per year versus investors who stay the course. A robo-advisor does not eliminate this risk, but the contractual structure and reduced daily visibility of the portfolio can dampen emotional reactions. For investors who know this is their pattern, the robo structure may be worth more than the fee.

High-income professionals. For someone earning 80 to 100 euros net per hour, the ten to fifteen hours per year needed to build, monitor and rebalance a 40,000-euro ETF portfolio carry an implicit cost of 800 to 1,500 euros: above the robo management fee. The calculation shifts for larger portfolios, where the percentage fee becomes a far more significant absolute amount.

Small portfolios with foreign brokers. For investors using brokers under regime dichiarativo with smaller amounts, the accountant cost can substantially narrow the DIY economic advantage, making the robo more competitive than the headline fee comparison suggests.

When DIY is clearly better

Larger portfolios. A percentage fee becomes an increasingly large absolute amount as the portfolio grows. On 200,000 euros, Moneyfarm’s 0.65% represents 1,300 euros per year in additional cost over a DIY portfolio. The time required to manage a portfolio does not grow proportionally with its size.

Already disciplined investors. Someone who has demonstrated they do not intervene during downturns, who has maintained an automatic investment plan for years without interruption, has no need for a robo structure to maintain discipline. The extra cost buys nothing useful.

Investors who want control over their allocation. Robo-advisors offer a limited number of preset risk profiles, typically between five and ten. Investors who want a specific geographic tilt, a precise equity-to-bond ratio not covered by the available profiles, or sector exclusions will not find it in a standard automated service.

FAQ

The answers to the most common questions appear in the schema above. Additional context below.

What if my robo-advisor’s actual performance is better than the index?

Some robo-advisors have outperformed their benchmark indices in specific years due to tactical asset allocation shifts or factor tilts. Over long horizons, net-of-fee outperformance is rare and inconsistent. Evaluate any performance comparison net of all fees and over a full market cycle, not just a single positive period.

Is Moneyfarm regulated in Italy?

Yes. Moneyfarm is authorised as an investment firm by the Financial Conduct Authority (UK) and operates in Italy under EU passporting rules, with oversight by Consob. Client assets are segregated from company assets.

Next step

The choice between a robo-advisor and a DIY ETF portfolio is not ideological: it is a question of costs, personal discipline and how much value you place on convenience.

With Wallible you can:

• Simulate your portfolio’s growth over 10, 20 and 30-year horizons with different return assumptions and cost levels, to see concretely how management fees affect long-term outcomes
• Analyse the metrics of an existing portfolio, including actual performance versus the reference index
• Read the article on the lazy portfolio to understand how to build a diversified ETF portfolio with a few instruments and minimal maintenance