All advisory fees, account minimums, and cash figures reflect provider pricing pages current as of August 2026; robo-advisor pricing changes without notice, so verify directly before opening an account.
TL;DR — Quick Verdict
- On a $100,000 balance, the four largest robo-advisors cost roughly: Vanguard Digital Advisor ~$150/year (0.15% net), Betterment and Wealthfront $250/year (0.25%), Fidelity Go $350/year (0.35%), and Schwab Intelligent Portfolios $0 in stated fees.
- Schwab’s “free” advisory fee is offset by a mandatory 6–10% cash allocation that earns a below-market rate — a hidden drag that can exceed $400/year on $100,000 in 2026.
- Comparison result: for a taxable account above $50,000 wanting tax-loss harvesting, Betterment and Wealthfront (0.25%) beat Schwab’s $0 headline once cash drag is counted.
- Fidelity Go is the only major option that is genuinely $0 all-in below $25,000 — no advisory fee and 0.00% expense-ratio funds.
- Recommendation: pick Vanguard or Fidelity Go for low-cost IRAs, Betterment or Wealthfront for taxable accounts needing tax optimization, and treat Schwab’s cash allocation as the real price of admission.
A 0.25% advisory fee sounds trivial until you run it forward. On a $100,000 portfolio compounding at 7% for 30 years, the difference between paying 0.15% and 0.35% is roughly $30,000 in forgone growth — real money extracted by a rounding error most investors never model. Robo-advisors marketed themselves on that exact insight, undercutting the traditional 1% human advisor. Yet the five biggest platforms — Betterment, Wealthfront, Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, Vanguard Digital Advisor, and Fidelity Go — now price themselves across a surprisingly wide band, from a stated $0 to 0.35% annually, with structural costs that don’t appear on any fee schedule.
This comparison models the real net annual cost of each platform at three balance tiers, exposes Schwab’s cash-allocation drag with Schwab’s own disclosed figures, and identifies which robo-advisor wins for which investor. Betterment reports charging 0.25% with no account minimum; Vanguard’s published net advisory fee runs closer to 0.15%. Those headline numbers are only the starting point.
What Each Robo-Advisor Actually Charges in 2026
Start with the sticker price. Four of the five leading platforms publish a simple advisory fee; the fifth, Schwab, charges nothing on paper and recovers its costs elsewhere. The table below reflects each provider’s official pricing page as of August 2026.
Sources: Betterment, Wealthfront, Charles Schwab, Vanguard, and Fidelity official pricing pages, August 2026 (verify at betterment.com, wealthfront.com, schwab.com, vanguard.com, fidelity.com).
Three fee models emerge. Betterment and Wealthfront charge a flat 0.25%. Vanguard undercuts them at roughly 0.15% net, calculated by taking a gross advisory fee near 0.20% and crediting back the fund revenue Vanguard earns from its own ETFs. Fidelity Go splits the difference with a free tier below $25,000, then jumps to 0.35% — the highest headline rate here, though it bundles human coaching and uses 0.00% expense-ratio funds. Deciding between a percentage-of-assets model and a flat retainer is the same math that separates a [fee-only versus AUM advisor long-term cost](/investing/brokerage-tools/fee-only-vs-aum-advisor/), just at one-quarter the price.
Modeling the Real Net Annual Cost at $25K, $100K, and $500K
Advisory fees compound with balance, so the ranking shifts as your account grows. Below is the modeled advisory cost — advisory fee only, excluding underlying fund expense ratios — at three common balance tiers. These are original calculations applying each provider’s published rate to a static balance.
Modeled by Real Cost Report using published 2026 advisory fees applied to a static balance; Vanguard uses ~0.15% net. *Schwab’s $0 advisory fee excludes cash-allocation drag, quantified below. Verify rates at the providers’ official sites.
Vanguard is the outright cost leader at every tier it competes in, at $150/year on $100,000 versus $250 for Betterment and Wealthfront. Fidelity Go inverts its position as balances grow: free and unbeatable below $25,000, but the priciest flat option once the 0.35% rate kicks in — $1,750/year on $500,000, or $1,000 more than Vanguard for a portfolio the algorithm manages nearly identically. Schwab’s column of zeros is the headline that requires the asterisk. Investors comparing these numbers to a percentage-based human planner should weigh them against full [financial advisor fee structures explained](/investing/brokerage-tools/financial-advisor-cost/), where 1% remains common.
Schwab’s $0 Fee vs Betterment’s 0.25%: Which Is Cheaper for a $100K Taxable Account?
Schwab charges no advisory fee, so on price alone it wins every tier. The catch is structural: every Schwab Intelligent Portfolios account carries a mandatory cash allocation. Schwab discloses that the typical investor holds 6–10% in cash, and that allocation can climb as high as 30% in conservative portfolios. That cash sits in a Schwab Bank sweep earning a below-market rate rather than participating in market returns.
Model it on $100,000 at an 8% cash allocation — the middle of Schwab’s stated range. That’s $8,000 parked in cash. If the invested 92% would have returned 7% annually, the cash position forgoes roughly $560 in market growth. Schwab’s sweep does pay some interest — its Intelligent Portfolios sweep rate was 3.28% APY as of August 3, 2026 — which offsets part of the gap, but a 3.28% cash yield against a 7% equity assumption still leaves a meaningful net drag. Even crediting the full sweep yield, the opportunity cost lands in the low-to-mid hundreds of dollars per year, in the same neighborhood as Betterment’s flat $250. The exact figure depends on how the sweep rate compares to what that cash could earn elsewhere, a gap explored in detail under [brokerage cash sweep rates and lost yield](/investing/brokerage-tools/cash-sweep-rates/).
Verdict
For a $100,000 taxable account, Betterment’s transparent 0.25% ($250/year) is easier to reason about and delivers full market exposure plus tax-loss harvesting on every dollar. Schwab’s $0 fee genuinely wins for investors who value a cash cushion or hold conservative allocations, but for a growth-oriented investor the cash drag quietly erases most of the fee savings. Choose Schwab only if you’d hold that cash anyway; otherwise Betterment’s fully invested portfolio is the better value.
How Underlying Fund Expense Ratios Change the Real Total
The advisory fee is only half of what you pay. Every robo-advisor builds portfolios from ETFs or mutual funds, and those funds carry their own expense ratios charged by the fund provider — not the robo — on top of the advisory fee. Ignoring this layer understates your true cost.
Betterment reports its portfolio ETFs run 0.03% to 0.30%, depending on allocation and whether you choose a specialized portfolio. Schwab’s underlying Schwab ETFs average roughly 0.03% on the equity side. Vanguard’s all-Vanguard portfolios use funds averaging near 0.05%. Fidelity Go is the outlier: it invests exclusively in Fidelity Flex mutual funds with 0.00% expense ratios, meaning its 0.35% advisory fee is genuinely the all-in cost with no fund layer beneath it. Add the layers together and the ranking tightens. A Betterment portfolio at 0.25% advisory plus, say, 0.08% in fund expenses reaches roughly 0.33% all-in — nearly identical to Fidelity Go’s 0.35% flat rate, despite Betterment’s lower headline. Investors who want to see how fund-level costs stack across platforms can compare [fractional share availability and hidden costs](/investing/brokerage-tools/fractional-shares/) and broader [portfolio management software cost comparison](/investing/brokerage-tools/portfolio-software-comparison/) for a fuller picture.
What Most People Get Wrong About Robo-Advisor Costs
Fee comparisons collapse when investors misread how these platforms actually bill. Five mistakes recur.
Mistake 1: Treating Schwab’s $0 as truly free
The consequence is an underperforming portfolio that costs more than a 0.25% competitor once cash drag is counted. The correct action: estimate your cash allocation, multiply by the gap between the sweep rate and a market return, and treat that as your real fee.
Mistake 2: Comparing advisory fees while ignoring fund expense ratios
A 0.25% platform using 0.15% funds costs more all-in than a 0.35% platform using 0.00% funds. Always add the two layers before ranking. Fidelity Go’s zero-expense funds change the math in its favor at exactly the point its advisory fee looks worst.
Mistake 3: Assuming tax-loss harvesting is universal
It isn’t. Vanguard Digital Advisor offers none; Schwab restricts it to accounts of $50,000 or more; Fidelity Go limits it to taxable accounts at $25,000+. If harvesting drives your choice, Betterment and Wealthfront are the only two offering it on every taxable dollar.
Mistake 4: Overlooking account minimums that lock you out
Wealthfront requires $500 and Schwab requires $5,000. A beginner with $300 simply cannot use Schwab. Match the minimum to your starting balance before comparing rates — a topic covered under [low-cost brokerage accounts for beginners](/investing/brokerage-tools/best-brokerages-beginners/).
Mistake 5: Forgetting the cost of leaving
Switching robos can trigger taxable sales in a taxable account or transfer friction in an IRA. Understand [moving IRA accounts without fees or taxes](/investing/brokerage-tools/ira-transfer-cost/) before you commit, because the exit cost can dwarf a year of advisory fees.
Which Robo-Advisor Is Worth It for Your Situation?
No single platform wins for everyone; the right choice tracks your balance, account type, and appetite for tax optimization. Apply this conditional logic.
If you’re starting with under $25,000 in an IRA or taxable account, Fidelity Go is the clear pick — $0 advisory fee and 0.00% funds make it genuinely free, with no minimum. If you’re building a long-term IRA and don’t need tax-loss harvesting, Vanguard Digital Advisor’s ~0.15% net fee is the lowest ongoing cost among platforms that charge one. If you hold a taxable account above $50,000 and want aggressive tax management, Betterment or Wealthfront justify their 0.25% through harvesting on every dollar, with Wealthfront’s direct indexing pulling ahead past $100,000.
If you’d naturally hold a cash reserve anyway and prefer conservative allocations, Schwab Intelligent Portfolios can legitimately be your cheapest option — the cash drag only hurts investors who want to be fully invested. And if you’re weighing a robo against a human, confirm any advisor’s standing first through [verifying advisor credentials via BrokerCheck](/investing/brokerage-tools/verify-advisor-credentials/) and understand the [fiduciary versus non-fiduciary advisor differences](/investing/brokerage-tools/fiduciary-vs-non-fiduciary/), since a robo’s algorithmic fiduciary duty differs from a commissioned salesperson’s. For investors torn between a taxable robo account and a retirement wrapper, the sequencing question in [taxable brokerage vs Roth account priority](/investing/brokerage-tools/taxable-brokerage-vs-roth/) matters more than the 0.10% fee spread between platforms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a robo-advisor cheaper than a human financial advisor?
Almost always. The largest robo-advisors charge 0.15% to 0.35% annually, while traditional human advisors commonly charge around 1% of assets under management. On $100,000, that’s roughly $150–$350 at a robo versus about $1,000 at a 1% human advisor. The trade-off is that robos offer limited or no personalized human planning, though Betterment Premium and Schwab’s former premium tiers bridged that gap at higher cost.
Why does Schwab Intelligent Portfolios charge no advisory fee?
Schwab funds the service through its mandatory cash allocation. Every portfolio holds 6–10% in cash (up to 30% in conservative profiles) in a Schwab Bank sweep, where Schwab earns interest on those deposits. That structure replaces an explicit fee but creates cash drag — the forgone market return on money that isn’t invested. On $100,000, this indirect cost can approach or exceed what a 0.25% competitor charges outright.
Which robo-advisor has the lowest account minimum?
Betterment and Fidelity Go both have a $0 account minimum, though Betterment requires $10 to begin investing. Vanguard Digital Advisor requires $100, Wealthfront $500, and Schwab Intelligent Portfolios the highest at $5,000. For beginners with small starting balances, Betterment and Fidelity Go remove the entry barrier entirely.
Do robo-advisors charge fees on top of fund expense ratios?
Yes, in most cases. The advisory fee (0.15%–0.35%) is separate from the underlying fund expense ratios charged by the ETF providers. Betterment’s portfolio funds run 0.03%–0.30%; Vanguard’s average near 0.05%. The exception is Fidelity Go, which uses Fidelity Flex funds with 0.00% expense ratios, making its 0.35% advisory fee the complete all-in cost.
How We Researched This Article
This comparison draws exclusively on primary provider sources: the official pricing and disclosure pages of Betterment, Wealthfront, Charles Schwab, Vanguard, and Fidelity, each accessed and verified in August 2026. Advisory fees, account minimums, cash-allocation ranges, tax-loss-harvesting thresholds, and expense-ratio ranges were taken directly from each firm’s published materials rather than third-party aggregators. Schwab’s sweep interest rate of 3.28% APY reflects the rate the firm disclosed effective August 3, 2026.
The net annual cost figures at the $25,000, $100,000, and $500,000 tiers are original calculations by Real Cost Report, applying each provider’s stated advisory rate to a static balance. These are modeled illustrations, not measured account outcomes — they exclude compounding, market fluctuation, and deposit timing, which would alter real-world totals. The Schwab cash-drag estimate is a modeled scenario using Schwab’s own disclosed 6–10% cash range, an 8% midpoint allocation, and a 7% equity-return assumption; actual drag varies with your allocation, the prevailing sweep rate, and market performance. Fund expense ratios are reported as provider ranges because the exact figure depends on your assigned portfolio.
Primary and secondary sources consulted include Charles Schwab’s Intelligent Portfolios sweep disclosure, Fidelity Go’s official overview, Betterment’s fee help center, Vanguard’s Digital Advisor minimum press release, and NerdWallet’s robo-advisor reviews for cross-verification. Research was last conducted in August 2026. All figures were verified against named primary sources before publication.