Introduction: two investment philosophies
When you open a multi-fund life insurance policy, a fundamental choice presents itself: will you manage the allocation of your savings yourself (self-directed management), or will you entrust this task to a professional or algorithm (managed portfolio)?
This choice is not trivial. It determines your level of involvement, the types of investments you will access, the fees you will pay, and potentially the performance of your savings over the long term.
In France, managed portfolios have seen remarkable growth since 2015, driven by the emergence of robo-advisors (Yomoni, Nalo, WeSave) and by the managed mandate offerings from online policies. In 2024, approximately 25 % of new subscriptions opt for some form of delegated management.
This article helps you determine which management approach best fits your situation.
Self-directed management: you are in control
How it works
In self-directed management, you choose the investment options yourself (euro fund, unit-linked funds) and their allocation. You carry out switches yourself when you see fit. You are both the architect and the manager of your allocation.
Advantages of self-directed management
1. Total freedom of choice You access the full catalogue of options available in the policy. On a policy like Linxea Spirit 2, that means over 700 options: ETFs, SCPIs, OPCVMs, thematic funds, private equity...
2. Fees kept to a minimum No additional management fees related to delegation. You pay only the policy fees (insurer management) and the internal fees of your chosen investments.
3. Maximum personalisation You can build a bespoke allocation tailored to your convictions: overweight certain geographic zones, invest in ISR, combine SCPIs and ETFs, etc.
4. Control and responsiveness You can react quickly to market developments, adjust your allocation based on personal events (inheritance, change of situation) or your own outlook.
Disadvantages of self-directed management
1. Skills required You need to understand financial markets, know how to build a coherent allocation, analyse available options, and grasp the principles of diversification.
2. Time required Initial fund selection and regular monitoring (rebalancing, fund oversight) require time. Allow at least 2 to 5 hours per quarter.
3. Risk of behavioural biases Individual investors are exposed to numerous psychological biases:
- Panic selling (selling in a panic during downturns)
- Overconfidence (overweighting a sector out of conviction)
- Inertia (never rebalancing)
- Market timing (trying to anticipate markets, which fails in 90 % of cases)
4. Facing decisions alone No safety net or second opinion. When in doubt, you are on your own.
Ideal profile for self-directed management
Self-directed management suits those who:
- Have solid financial knowledge
- Enjoy managing their investments
- Have time for monitoring
- Have emotional discipline in the face of market fluctuations
- Want to minimise fees
- Want access to specific options (SCPIs, specific ETFs, private equity)
Example: Laurent, 41, finance director, has managed his life insurance in self-directed mode for 8 years. He built a portfolio of 5 ETFs (world, Europe, emerging, small caps, bonds) and 3 SCPIs. He rebalances once a year and devotes about 30 minutes per month to monitoring. His annualised net-of-fees performance is 7.2 % over the period, outperforming most managed portfolios.
Managed portfolio: you delegate to an expert
How it works
In a managed portfolio (also called managed mandate or delegated management), you entrust your allocation management to a professional. After defining your risk profile (cautious, balanced, dynamic, aggressive), the manager selects the investments and carries out switches on your behalf.
The different forms of managed portfolio
Classic profiled management (insurer)
The insurer or distributor offers standard allocations based on predefined profiles. The allocation is adjusted periodically (often quarterly) by an investment committee.
Examples: Boursorama's managed portfolio (4 profiles), Linxea's Gestion Horizon.
Robo-advisors (algorithmic management)
Asset management companies use algorithms and investment committees to manage the allocation. The approach is systematic, ETF-based, with automatic rebalancing.
Main players:
- Yomoni: French pioneer, founded in 2015. 100 % ETF allocation. 10 risk profiles (P1 to P10).
- Nalo: founded in 2017. Personalised allocation per project, with an innovative multi-project approach. ETF-based investing.
- WeSave (Amundi): acquired by Amundi in 2022. Broader wealth management approach.
- Goodvest: ISR/climate specialist, exclusively labelled responsible options.
- Ramify: multi-wrapper approach (life insurance + PER + PEA).
Private banking managed mandate
For larger portfolios (typically from 100,000 to 250,000 EUR), private banks offer genuinely bespoke management with a dedicated portfolio manager.
Advantages of managed portfolio
1. No skills required You do not need to understand financial markets. The professional handles everything.
2. Considerable time savings Once the profile is defined and the policy opened, you have nothing more to do. Perfect for those who do not want to deal with their investments.
3. Emotional discipline The manager makes decisions rationally, unaffected by emotions. They rebalance systematically, which many individual investors fail to do.
4. Professional diversification Allocations are built according to best practices in asset management: geographic, sectoral and asset class diversification.
5. Accessibility Some robo-advisors accept very low initial contributions (1,000 EUR at Yomoni, 1,000 EUR at Nalo), making professional management accessible to the widest audience.
Disadvantages of managed portfolio
1. Additional fees A managed portfolio fee is added to the standard policy fees. The all-in cost ranges from 1.5 % to 2.5 % per year depending on the provider.
2. Less personal choice You do not individually choose your investments. It is impossible to invest specifically in SCPIs or in a thematic fund close to your heart.
3. Performance not always up to expectations Managed portfolios do not guarantee outperformance. Many traditional managed mandates underperform a simple self-directed ETF portfolio.
4. Standardisation Despite the profiles, the allocation remains relatively standardised. It does not account for your specific wealth details (except at Nalo, which offers a project-based approach).
Fee comparison
| Self-directed (ETF) | Self-directed (OPCVM) | Robo-advisor managed | Bank managed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insurer fees | 0.50-0.75 % | 0.50-0.75 % | 0.60 % | 0.75-1.00 % |
| Management fees | 0 % | 0 % | 0.70 % | 0.50-1.50 % |
| Internal fund fees | 0.20-0.30 % | 1.50-2.00 % | 0.20-0.30 % | 1.50-2.00 % |
| Annual total | 0.70-1.05 % | 2.00-2.75 % | 1.50-1.60 % | 2.75-4.50 % |
The fee ranking is clear:
- Self-directed with ETFs: the cheapest
- Robo-advisor managed: intermediate
- Self-directed with OPCVMs: relatively expensive
- Bank managed: the most expensive
Performance comparison (indicative data)
Annualised performance over 5 years (2020-2024) - balanced profiles
| Provider | Type | Annualised performance (net of management fees) |
|---|---|---|
| Yomoni P6 (balanced) | Robo-advisor | +5.8 % |
| Nalo Standard (50/50) | Robo-advisor | +5.5 % |
| Boursorama managed balanced | Online bank | +4.2 % |
| MSCI World ETF alone (benchmark) | Passive benchmark | +10.2 % |
| 50 % euro fund + 50 % ETF World portfolio | Self-directed | +6.8 % |
| Bank managed mandate (average) | Traditional bank | +3.5 % |
Analysis: robo-advisors significantly outperform traditional bank managed mandates, thanks to their lower fees and use of ETFs. However, a disciplined self-directed investor using ETFs can do even better, provided they maintain discipline over the long term.
Risk profiles in managed portfolios
Cautious profile (P1-P3 at Yomoni)
- Allocation: 70-90 % bonds/euro fund, 10-30 % equities
- Annual volatility: 3-5 %
- Objective: capital preservation with a return above the Livret A
- Maximum one-year loss: -5 to -8 %
Suited to: Monique, 68, retired, who invests 80,000 EUR to supplement her pension and does not want to see her capital fall significantly.
Balanced profile (P4-P6 at Yomoni)
- Allocation: 40-60 % bonds/euro fund, 40-60 % equities
- Annual volatility: 7-12 %
- Objective: moderate capital growth
- Maximum one-year loss: -12 to -18 %
Suited to: Stephane, 48, logistics manager, who is saving for retirement in 17 years and accepts moderate fluctuations.
Dynamic profile (P7-P8 at Yomoni)
- Allocation: 10-30 % bonds, 70-90 % equities
- Annual volatility: 12-18 %
- Objective: maximise capital growth
- Maximum one-year loss: -20 to -30 %
Suited to: Lea, 33, data scientist, who invests 400 EUR per month for a very long-term project and can withstand significant downturns.
Aggressive profile (P9-P10 at Yomoni)
- Allocation: 0-10 % bonds, 90-100 % equities
- Annual volatility: 18-25 %
- Objective: maximise absolute performance over the very long term
- Maximum one-year loss: -30 to -40 %
Suited to: Hugo, 26, entrepreneur, who already has an emergency fund and invests his entire life insurance in equities.
Thematic managed portfolios
A strong trend in 2024-2026 is the emergence of thematic managed portfolios:
Responsible investment (ISR/ESG)
- Goodvest: 100 % of options are ISR-labelled or aligned with the Paris Agreement. Exclusion of fossil fuels, tobacco, arms.
- Nalo ESG: ISR option available across all profiles.
- Yomoni Responsable: dedicated mandate with ESG ETFs.
By life project
Nalo stands out with its multi-project approach: instead of a single profile for your entire policy, you define distinct pockets (retirement, property purchase, children's education) with different horizons and risk profiles. Each pocket's allocation evolves automatically as the horizon approaches (progressive de-risking).
Example: Sandrine, 39, architect, uses Nalo with three projects:
- Retirement project (25-year horizon): aggressive profile, 90 % equities -> 300 EUR/month
- Children's education project (10-year horizon): balanced profile, 50 % equities -> 200 EUR/month
- Travel project (3-year horizon): cautious profile, 80 % bonds -> 100 EUR/month
How to choose: the decision tree
Answer these questions in order:
1. Do you have financial or investment knowledge?
- No -> Managed portfolio
- Yes -> Next question
2. Do you have time to devote to management (2-5h/quarter)?
- No -> Managed portfolio
- Yes -> Next question
3. Are you able to stay calm during market downturns?
- No, I am likely to sell everything -> Managed portfolio (the manager stays the course)
- Yes, I remain disciplined -> Self-directed
4. How much are you investing?
- Under 10,000 EUR -> Managed portfolio (the fee savings from self-directed are small in absolute terms)
- Over 50,000 EUR -> Self-directed (the fee savings become significant)
5. Do you want access to specific investments (SCPIs, specific ETFs)?
- Yes -> Self-directed
- No, I just want my money well invested -> Managed portfolio
The hybrid solution: combining both
Nothing forces you to choose exclusively one or the other. Several hybrid strategies exist:
Two separate policies
Open a managed policy (e.g. Yomoni or Nalo) for the portion you do not want to manage, and a self-directed policy (e.g. Linxea Spirit 2) for the investments you wish to manage yourself (SCPIs, specific ETFs).
Self-directed with automatic switching options
Some self-directed policies offer automated management options:
- Gains lock-in
- Progressive investment
- Stop-loss
- Automatic rebalancing
These options add a layer of discipline without switching to full managed mode.
Example of a hybrid strategy
Vincent, 44, sales executive, has adopted the following strategy:
- Yomoni (P7 profile): 500 EUR/month in managed mode for long-term growth, zero intervention required
- Linxea Spirit 2 (self-directed): 30,000 EUR invested in SCPIs (Corum Origin, Remake Live, Iroko Zen) for property returns, plus 10,000 EUR in euro fund for liquidity
This combination gives him the best of both worlds: the discipline of a professional manager for financial markets, and access to specific asset classes (SCPIs) unavailable in managed portfolios.
Mistakes to avoid
In self-directed management
- Failing to diversify: putting everything in a single investment or sector
- Never rebalancing: letting the allocation drift without intervening
- Changing strategy too often: altering the allocation with every market fluctuation
- Ignoring internal fees: choosing OPCVMs at 2 % in fees instead of equivalent ETFs at 0.25 %
- Overreacting to news: selling in panic during a crash
In managed portfolio
- Choosing the wrong profile: opting for a dynamic profile when you will panic at the first downturn
- Changing profile at the worst moment: switching from dynamic to cautious after a crash (crystallising losses)
- Ignoring fees: some bank managed portfolios cost 3-4 % per year in total
- Not comparing performance: some managed mandates dramatically underperform
- Multiplying mandates: having 3 different managed portfolios without overall coherence
Our recommendation for 2026
For the majority of savers who are beginners or lack in-depth financial knowledge, managed portfolios via a robo-advisor (Yomoni or Nalo) represent the best compromise:
- Reasonable fees (1.5-1.6 % all-in)
- Professional ETF-based allocation
- Automatic discipline
- Accessible from 1,000 EUR
For experienced and disciplined savers, self-directed management with ETFs on a policy like Linxea Spirit 2 or Lucya Cardif remains the optimal solution in terms of fees (0.7-1 % all-in) and flexibility.
In all cases, avoid traditional bank managed mandates, whose excessive fees (3-4 % per year) and mediocre performance are no longer justifiable in 2026.
Key takeaways
- Self-directed management gives you total control but demands skills, time and discipline
- Managed portfolio delegates decisions to a professional for an additional fee
- Robo-advisors (Yomoni, Nalo) offer the best value for money in managed mode
- A disciplined self-directed investor using ETFs will outperform most managed portfolios
- The hybrid solution (two policies) lets you combine the advantages of both approaches
- The choice depends on your skills, available time, emotional discipline and the amount invested
- Avoid traditional bank managed mandates (excessive fees, disappointing performance)