Yomoni vs Nalo 2026: Which Robo-Advisor Should You Choose?

Yomoni vs Nalo: the head-to-head between France's two leading robo-advisors

Yomoni and Nalo are the two most reputable robo-advisors on the French market. Both offer 100 % ETF-based managed portfolios, fees significantly lower than traditional managed solutions, and an entirely digital experience. Yet behind this shared facade, their investment philosophies differ profoundly.

Yomoni focuses on simplicity: 10 standardised risk profiles, a polished interface and four account wrappers. Nalo focuses on personalisation: bespoke allocations per project, automatic progressive de-risking and an ISR option. The choice between them depends on your saver profile, your goals and your preferences.

This detailed comparison analyses each criterion to help you make the right choice.

Summary comparison table

Investment philosophy: two fundamentally different approaches

Yomoni: the simplicity of standardised profiles

At Yomoni, the approach is deliberately simple. The saver answers an online questionnaire and is assigned one of 10 risk profiles (P1 to P10), ranging from the most conservative (100 % euro fund) to the most aggressive (nearly 100 % equities). The profile determines the portfolio allocation, which is then managed automatically by Yomoni's investment team.

This approach has the merit of clarity: one profile, one allocation, no unnecessary questions. The saver knows exactly what they hold and has no decisions to make. It is ideal for people who want to invest without overthinking.

The trade-off is that the allocation is fixed over time. A P7 profile remains a P7 profile whether the horizon is 5 or 30 years. If the saver wants to adapt their allocation as a goal approaches, they must manually request a profile change. This rigidity can lead to sub-optimal situations, particularly as retirement or a property purchase draws near.

Nalo: personalisation by project

Nalo takes a radically different approach. Rather than assigning a single profile, Nalo allows the saver to define independent savings projects within the same policy. Each project has its own allocation, calculated based on horizon, target amount and risk tolerance.

A saver can thus simultaneously have:

• A "rainy day fund" project with a cautious allocation (2-year horizon)
• A "property deposit" project with a moderate allocation (5-year horizon)
• A "retirement" project with a dynamic allocation (25-year horizon)

This segmentation by objective is more sophisticated than Yomoni's standardised profiles. It avoids the trap of a single "balanced" profile that is actually too dynamic for the short term and too cautious for the long term.

Fees: a marginal advantage for Nalo

Fee breakdown for life insurance

The total fees of both services are very close, with a slight edge to Nalo.

The 0.05 % annual gap (1.60 % vs 1.55 %) is real but marginal. On a 50,000 EUR capital, that represents approximately 25 EUR per year. Over 20 years, with compound effects, the cumulative difference reaches approximately 1,500 EUR. Not negligible, but not a decisive criterion either.

Why Generali fees are higher but the total is lower

A paradox worth highlighting: Generali (Nalo's insurer) charges 0.85 % in wrapper fees versus 0.60 % for Suravenir (Yomoni's insurer). Despite this 0.25 % gap in insurer fees, Nalo achieves a lower total thanks to lower own management fees (0.55 % vs 0.70 %) and, crucially, less expensive underlying ETFs (~0.15 % vs ~0.30 %).

This point is important because it shows that wrapper fees alone are not enough to judge the total cost of a solution. What truly matters is the all-in total.

Comparison with alternatives

Both robo-advisors are significantly more competitive than bank-managed portfolios, but remain more expensive than self-directed ETF management. The additional cost of 0.80 to 0.85 % compared to self-directed management is the price for the automated management service.

Performance: comparable results

2024 performance

The 2024 performances of both services are in the same ballpark, which is logical since they invest in the same asset class (diversified global ETFs) with similar fees.

Compared historical performances (2020-2025)

Over a longer horizon, both services show similar trajectories, with annual variations that offset each other over time.

The conclusion on performance is clear: both services produce comparable results over the long term. Any gap stems more from allocation differences between profiles than from the intrinsic quality of management. In other words, the choice between Yomoni and Nalo should not be based on past performance.

Risk profiles: standardised vs personalised

Yomoni's 10 profiles

Yomoni offers 10 profiles numbered P1 to P10. Each profile corresponds to a fixed allocation between euro fund, bonds and equities. The saver can change profile at any time, but the allocation within the profile does not adjust automatically based on remaining time.

The most popular profiles are P5 to P7 (balanced to dynamic), which account for the majority of assets. The P1 profile (100 % euro fund) is rarely chosen since it adds nothing compared to a standard euro fund.

Nalo's bespoke allocation

At Nalo, there are no pre-set profiles. The algorithm calculates a specific allocation for each project based on four parameters: initial amount, regular contributions, horizon and risk tolerance. The result is a personalised allocation that might be, for example, 72 % equities / 28 % bonds -- a positioning between P7 and P8 at Yomoni.

The advantage is that the allocation is more granular than a standardised profile. The disadvantage is that it is harder to understand for a beginner. At Yomoni, the saver knows they are in P7 and can easily compare with other investors. At Nalo, each allocation is unique.

Key features: multi-project and progressive de-risking

Progressive de-risking: Nalo's standout feature

Progressive de-risking (or glide path) is probably Nalo's most differentiating feature. As a project approaches its target date, the allocation automatically shifts towards less risky assets. This transition is gradual and transparent.

Concretely, for a "retirement" project with a 20-year horizon:

• 20 years out: 80 % equities, 20 % bonds
• 15 years out: 72 % equities, 28 % bonds
• 10 years out: 60 % equities, 40 % bonds
• 5 years out: 40 % equities, 60 % bonds
• 1 year out: 15 % equities, 85 % bonds

This automatic de-risking avoids the danger of suffering a market crash just before needing your money. At Yomoni, this feature only exists in PER (a regulatory requirement) but not in life insurance. Yomoni savers must remember to manually change their profile as their goal approaches, which many forget to do.

Multi-project: segment to optimise

Nalo's multi-project feature allows managing several objectives within a single life insurance policy. Each project has its own allocation, its own horizon and its own progressive de-risking. The triple advantage:

1. Optimisation: each project gets the allocation best suited to its horizon
2. Tax simplicity: one policy = one tax seniority date
3. Clear visibility: the saver can see the progress of each objective separately

At Yomoni, this segmentation does not exist. If the saver wants different allocations for different objectives, they must open multiple policies, complicating tax and administrative management.

The ISR / ESG option: available only at Nalo

Nalo offers a Socially Responsible Investment (ISR) option that steers the portfolio towards ETFs incorporating ESG criteria (Environmental, Social, Governance). The tracked indices apply exclusion filters (fossil fuels, arms, tobacco) and overweight companies with high extra-financial ratings.

The ISR option is available at no extra cost: total fees remain identical to standard management. This is a significant advantage for savers who care about environmental and social issues.

Yomoni does not offer a dedicated ISR option in 2026. The ETFs used by Yomoni are standard trackers that replicate conventional indices without ESG filters. This is a weak point for savers who wish to align their investments with their convictions.

Insurers: Suravenir vs Generali

Suravenir (Yomoni)

Suravenir is a subsidiary of the Credit Mutuel Arkea group, based in Brest. It is a medium-sized but solid insurer, which also underwrites other reputable online policies (Fortuneo, Linxea Avenir). Its wrapper fees of 0.60 % are among the lowest on the market, contributing to Yomoni's overall competitiveness.

Generali Vie (Nalo)

Generali Vie is the French subsidiary of the Generali group, a European insurance giant based in Italy. It is a first-rank insurer (A-rated by Standard & Poor's) managing substantial assets in France. Its wrapper fees of 0.85 % are higher than Suravenir, but Generali offers international financial backing and geographic risk diversification.

Both insurers provide a level of security more than adequate for savers. The 0.25 % difference in wrapper fees is offset by each robo-advisor's own management fees. In practice, the choice of insurer should not be a decisive criterion.

Interface and mobile app

Yomoni: the benchmark for user experience

The Yomoni mobile app is regularly cited as one of the best in the French savings market. The design is clean, the navigation is fluid and essential information (performance, allocation, transactions) is accessible at a glance.

The web dashboard is equally polished, with clear charts, a detailed switching history and forward projections. Online subscription takes 10-15 minutes and the process is educational.

Nalo: functional but a step behind

Nalo's interface is adequate and functional, but a notch below Yomoni in terms of design and fluidity. The project-based dashboard is an excellent concept (you see each objective separately), but the graphical execution is less refined.

The mobile app, available on iOS and Android, does the job but lacks the polish and responsiveness of Yomoni's. App updates seem less frequent.

Customer service and support

Yomoni: efficient and responsive

Yomoni's customer service is reachable by phone, email and chat. Client feedback is generally positive, highlighting responsive answers and competent teams. Yomoni does not, however, offer in-depth advisory meetings before subscription: the approach remains primarily digital.

Nalo: human support as a differentiator

Nalo stands out for the quality of its support. Nalo's wealth advisers are available for a free advisory meeting before subscription. This meeting allows a detailed discussion of your objectives, your financial situation and the proposed allocation strategy.

This human support goes beyond basic customer service. It adds a wealth advice dimension that reassures hesitant savers and helps refine project definitions. It is a real advantage for profiles who want guidance in their investment journey.

Minimum investment

Both services require a minimum initial investment of 1,000 EUR and accept regular contributions from 50 EUR per month. These thresholds are identical and accessible to the vast majority of savers.

Note that at Nalo, the minimum amount is distributed across the different projects. If the saver creates three projects, they must allocate at least a portion of the 1,000 EUR to each.

Available wrappers: advantage Yomoni

Yomoni: four wrappers

Yomoni offers four investment wrappers:

• Life insurance (Suravenir)
• PER (Plan d'Epargne Retraite)
• PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Actions)
• CTO (Compte-Titres Ordinaire / standard brokerage account)

This diversity is a significant advantage. The saver can manage their entire financial assets within a coherent ecosystem, with the same investment philosophy and the same risk profiles.

Nalo: two wrappers

Nalo is limited to two wrappers:

• Life insurance (Generali Vie)
• PER (Plan d'Epargne Retraite)

The absence of a PEA and CTO is a real limitation. Savers who want to benefit from the PEA's advantageous taxation after 5 years or who want an uncapped brokerage account will need to turn to another provider for these wrappers.

Practical scenarios: who should choose which?

Choose Yomoni if:

Profile 1: the beginner who wants maximum simplicity

Sophie, 29, web developer, knows nothing about finance. She wants to invest 200 EUR per month without thinking about it. Yomoni is ideal: a quick questionnaire, a P7 profile, and it is sorted. The crystal-clear interface reassures her, and she can check her performance at a glance on the app.

Profile 2: the multi-wrapper investor

Marc, 40, executive, wants to optimise his tax position with a PEA, a PER and a life insurance policy. At Yomoni, he can manage all three wrappers coherently with the same investment philosophy. At Nalo, he would need to open a PEA elsewhere, complicating management.

Profile 3: the design-conscious user

For people who value design and user experience, the Yomoni app is objectively superior. This criterion may seem superficial, but a good interface encourages the saver to check their policy regularly and maintain their regular contributions.

Choose Nalo if:

Profile 1: the multi-objective saver

Thomas, 42, wants to simultaneously save for a holiday home deposit (5 years), his children's education (10 years) and his retirement (22 years). Nalo's multi-project feature lets him manage these three objectives with tailored allocations in a single policy.

Profile 2: the investor concerned about risk at maturity

Claire, 55, is preparing for retirement in 10 years. Nalo's progressive de-risking will automatically reduce equity exposure as retirement approaches. At Yomoni, she would need to remember to manually change her profile every 2-3 years.

Profile 3: the convinced ISR investor

Lucas, 35, wants to invest responsibly without compromising performance. Nalo's ISR option, at no additional cost, allows him to align his investments with his convictions. Yomoni does not offer this option.

Profile 4: the saver who wants guidance

Anne, 50, has inherited 100,000 EUR and does not know how to invest it. Nalo's free advisory meeting lets her discuss with a wealth adviser before subscribing. At Yomoni, the approach is more self-directed.

What unites them: quality across the board

Beyond the differences, it is essential to stress that Yomoni and Nalo share fundamental qualities that place them well above traditional managed portfolios:

• 100 % ETF approach: both use exclusively low-cost index trackers, in line with academic research on passive investing
• Transparent, all-in fees: no hidden charges, no entry fees, no switching fees, no exit fees
• Total fees below 2 %: roughly half what traditional bank managed portfolios charge
• Automated management: no decisions to make, no switches to execute
• Accessibility: 1,000 EUR initial investment and regular contributions from 50 EUR per month
• Solid insurers: Suravenir and Generali are trusted names

Frequently asked questions

Can you transfer a Yomoni policy to Nalo (or vice versa)?

No, life insurance transfers are only possible within the same insurer. Since Suravenir and Generali are two different insurers, transfer is impossible. You can, however, surrender one policy to reinvest in the other, bearing in mind the tax consequences.

Are Yomoni and Nalo performances guaranteed?

No. Both services invest in equity and bond ETFs, whose value fluctuates. In the event of a market downturn, your capital may decrease. The euro fund (P1 profile only at Yomoni, and the secured pocket at Nalo) is the only capital-guaranteed option.

What is the withdrawal processing time?

Withdrawals are possible at any time, free of charge, on life insurance policies. Processing time is 48 to 72 hours with both services. In a PER, funds are locked until retirement except in cases of early release.

Do both offer a PER?

Yes, Yomoni and Nalo both offer a PER with the same ETF-based approach. Fees are similar. Progressive de-risking as retirement approaches is built into both (it is a regulatory requirement for PERs).

Our verdict: two excellent choices, for different profiles

Yomoni is the ideal choice for savers who prioritise simplicity, who want a complete ecosystem (life ins. + PER + PEA + CTO) and who do not need to segment their savings by objective. It is the Swiss army knife of delegated savings, with a benchmark interface and the largest client base among French robo-advisors.

Nalo is the ideal choice for multi-objective savers, those who want automatic progressive de-risking, an ISR option and quality human support. The bespoke approach is more sophisticated and better suited to growing portfolios with varying horizons.

In either case, you are making a sound choice: performances are comparable, fees are among the lowest on the market for managed portfolios, and both services are run by competent teams. The better of the two is whichever best matches your profile and your specific needs.