Came to ask/post the same thing but searched first. Their sales pitch is good, arguing that equal sector weighting with robo re-balancing reduces volatility. Their backtest period they show is only till 1990 because "that's when sector data is available".
I have a real hard time paying them .89% for the privilege but I'm interested to hear more. None of our trinity study FI/RE gospel is based on this strategy.
A client with a robo-advisor and his money are soon parted.
Look at it this way: The SWR is 4%. Your robo-adviser expenses are almost 25% of that. That means you either 1) need
substantially more money before you can retire, or 2) you must accept a substantially lower standard of living.
Back of the envelope, let's say your portfolio is worth $1MM, so fees are $8900. The same port in a low cost Vanguard ETFs would probably be around $900 or less. Studies show re-balancing every few years is plenty good. So you would be forking over 8 or 9 large every year for something you can do yourself in minutes every couple years. I mean, for eight or nine grand, I'll work a a couple weeks. And they are charging you that for a couple minutes. Does that sound insane, or does that sound really insane? Sounds f'ing crackers to me.
One thing the robo-scammers talk about is tax loss harvesting. Now, in that area, they probably can help. You could do it yourself, but I'm certain they can do it more easily. But if markets rise over time (which we are all betting they will), then after a few years they will have harvested all the losses and increased your basis so you will pay guaranteed higher taxes in the future. Sounds like a deal. If you really think taxes are a problem, drop a few grand on the best tax attorney in town. It will be way cheaper, and he'll find a lot more savings than just tax loss harvesting.