Managed Portfolio Review: 2024 Market Context
2024 was broadly favourable for financial markets, driven by easing monetary policies (the ECB's first rate cut in June 2024, followed by three consecutive cuts), the resilience of the US economy, and the continued tech rally fuelled by artificial intelligence. The CAC 40 rose only about 2% (held back by political instability in France following the dissolution of parliament), while the US S&P 500 surged over 23% and the MSCI World gained 17% in euro terms.
This context benefited managed portfolios, particularly those with higher equity exposure. However, significant performance gaps between providers remain, and some clearly stand out.
Performance by Risk Profile
Conservative Profile (20-30% Equities)
The conservative profile prioritises stability with a heavy allocation to euro funds and bonds. In 2024, observed returns ranged from 3.5% to 6% depending on the provider, buoyed by rising bond yields and improved euro fund rates.
| Criterion | Yomoni P3 | Nalo Standard Conservative | Goodvest Conservative | Boursorama Vie Defensive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Performance | +5.8% | +5.4% | +4.8% | +4.9% |
| 2023 Performance | +6.2% | +5.8% | +5.5% | +4.5% |
| 2022 Performance | -6.8% | -7.2% | -8.5% | -5.1% |
| Cumulative 3-year return | +4.9% | +3.7% | +1.3% | +4.2% |
| Typical allocation | 25% equities / 75% bonds | 20% equities / 80% bonds | 20% ESG equities | 30% equities / 70% mixed |
| Total annual fees | 1.60% | 1.65% | 1.70% | 2.00%+ |
| Investment vehicles | ETFs | ETFs | ESG/SRI ETFs | Active mutual funds |
Balanced Profile (40-60% Equities)
The balanced profile offers a compromise between returns and volatility. 2024 returns ranged from 6% to 10%, reflecting moderate equity market exposure. This is the most popular profile among most providers.
| Criterion | Yomoni P6 | Nalo Balanced | Ramify Flagship Balanced | Goodvest Balanced | WeSave Moderate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Performance | +9.7% | +8.0% | +9.2% | +7.0% | +8.2% |
| 2023 Performance | +10.1% | +9.5% | +10.5% | +8.2% | +8.6% |
| 2022 Performance | -12.5% | -13.1% | -11.0% | -15.2% | -12.8% |
| Cumulative 3-year return | +6.2% | +3.5% | +8.1% | -1.6% | +3.0% |
| Annualised 3-year return | +2.0% | +1.2% | +2.6% | -0.5% | +1.0% |
| Typical allocation | 55% equities / 45% bonds | 50% equities / 50% bonds | 50% equities / 30% bonds / 20% real estate | 50% ESG equities | 50% equities / 50% bonds |
| Total annual fees | 1.60% | 1.65% | 1.50% | 1.70% | 1.60% |
| Investment vehicles | ETFs | ETFs | ETFs + REITs (SCPI) | ESG/SRI ETFs | ETFs |
Notable point: Ramify stands out by integrating SCPI (non-listed real estate) and private equity into its allocations, which helped smooth volatility and improve cumulative returns over 3 years (+8.1% vs. +6.2% for Yomoni). Goodvest, specialising in socially responsible investing (SRI), underperformed in 2024 due to the exclusion of fossil fuel sectors and a bias towards climate-themed funds, which were not market leaders in 2024.
Aggressive Profile (70-100% Equities)
The aggressive profile, almost entirely invested in equities, fully captured the market rally. 2024 returns ranged from 10% to 18%, with a clear advantage for portfolios exposed to US equities and the technology sector.
| Criterion | Yomoni P10 | Nalo Aggressive | Ramify Flagship Aggressive | Goodvest Aggressive | Boursorama Offensive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Performance | +16.8% | +14.5% | +15.3% | +11.2% | +12.1% |
| 2023 Performance | +15.2% | +14.0% | +14.8% | +12.0% | +11.5% |
| 2022 Performance | -18.5% | -19.2% | -16.0% | -22.0% | -15.5% |
| Cumulative 3-year return | +10.8% | +6.3% | +12.2% | -2.4% | +6.9% |
| Cumulative 5-year return | +52% | +45% | +48%* | +22%* | +38% |
| Annualised 5-year return | +8.7% | +7.7% | +8.2%* | +4.1%* | +6.7% |
| Typical allocation | 95% equities / 5% bonds | 90% equities / 10% bonds | 85% equities / 10% real estate / 5% PE | 90% ESG equities | 80% equities / 20% mixed |
| Total annual fees | 1.60% | 1.65% | 1.50% | 1.70% | 2.50%+ |
Benchmark: Managed Portfolios vs MSCI World ETF vs 60/40 Portfolio
To objectively evaluate managed portfolios, let's compare the profiles against two simple benchmarks: a pure MSCI World ETF and a static 60% MSCI World / 40% euro fund portfolio.
| Strategy | 2024 Perf. | 2023 Perf. | 2022 Perf. | 3-year Cumul. | 5-year Cumul. (est.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSCI World ETF (CW8, in life insurance, 0.88% fees) | +16.1% | +18.5% | -13.5% | +20.0% | +68% |
| Static 60/40 portfolio (in life insurance) | +10.8% | +12.0% | -7.5% | +15.0% | +42% |
| Yomoni P6 (balanced) | +9.7% | +10.1% | -12.5% | +6.2% | +38% |
| Nalo Balanced | +8.0% | +9.5% | -13.1% | +3.5% | +32% |
| Ramify Flagship Balanced | +9.2% | +10.5% | -11.0% | +8.1% | +36%* |
| Goodvest Balanced | +7.0% | +8.2% | -15.2% | -1.6% | N/A |
| Yomoni P10 (aggressive) | +16.8% | +15.2% | -18.5% | +10.8% | +52% |
| Euro fund (market average) | +2.6% | +2.5% | +2.0% | +7.3% | +12% |
Key takeaways from this comparison:
- The static 60/40 portfolio beats most balanced managed portfolios over 3 and 5 years, thanks to the absence of management fees (saving 0.15% to 0.70% per year) and the weight of the MSCI World in the equity component.
- 100% MSCI World outperforms all profiles over the long term, but at the cost of significantly higher volatility (-13.5% in 2022 vs. -7.5% for the 60/40).
- Yomoni and Ramify emerge as the best-performing managed portfolios, thanks to their 100% ETF approach and controlled fees.
- Goodvest, despite its attractive SRI positioning, lags significantly due to its restricted investment universe (exclusion of fossil fuels, climate thematic bias).
- Boursorama Vie managed portfolios are penalised by the use of more expensive active funds (OPCVM/mutual funds) compared to ETFs, which explains their structural underperformance.
Outperformance Factors in 2024
US Equity Exposure
Managed portfolios heavily weighted towards US equities (via S&P 500 or MSCI USA ETFs) significantly outperformed those focused on Europe. The performance gap between the S&P 500 (+23%) and the Euro Stoxx 50 (+8%) created a divide among managers. Yomoni Profile 10, with a US overweight of roughly 60% of the equity sleeve, particularly benefited from this bias.
ETFs vs Active Funds
ETF-based managed portfolios (Yomoni, Nalo, Ramify, Goodvest) generally deliver better net returns than those using active funds (Boursorama Vie, certain bank-managed mandates). The fee gap (0.20-0.30% for an ETF vs. 1.50-2.00% for an active mutual fund) explains a significant portion of this difference over time.
Key figure: Over 5 years, the fee difference between an ETF-based managed portfolio (total fees ~1.60%) and an active fund-based one (total fees ~2.50%) represents approximately €4,500 in lost returns on an initial €50,000 investment.
Currency Effect
The US dollar strengthened against the euro in 2024 (+3%). Portfolios not hedged against currency risk on their dollar positions benefited from an additional performance boost. Yomoni and Ramify do not hedge currency risk, which worked in their favour in 2024.
Alternative Diversification (Ramify)
Ramify stands out by integrating SCPI (non-listed real estate) and private equity into certain profiles. This diversification helped limit the downturn in 2022 (-11% for Ramify vs. -12.5% for Yomoni in the balanced profile) and improved risk-adjusted returns over 3 years.
Managed vs Self-Directed: The Comparison
A common question arises: would you have done better managing your own portfolio? The answer depends on the investor's profile.
Performance of a Simple Self-Directed Portfolio
A portfolio composed of just two holdings — 60% Amundi MSCI World ETF (CW8) + 40% Spirica euro fund — on Linxea Spirit 2 would have returned approximately +10.8% in 2024 (net of contract fees), outperforming most balanced managed portfolios and comparable to the best (Yomoni P6 at +9.7%).
Over 5 years (2020-2024), this same 60/40 portfolio would have generated a cumulative return of approximately +42% (i.e., +7.3% annualised), comfortably beating all balanced managed portfolios on the market.
Advantages of Managed Portfolios
- Automation: no need to manually rebalance (Yomoni rebalances monthly, Nalo continuously)
- Discipline: avoids emotional decisions during market stress (in March 2020, many self-directed investors sold at the worst possible moment)
- Optimised allocation: multi-asset class diversification (bonds, real estate, commodities at Ramify)
- Goal-based management: Nalo automatically de-risks the allocation as your project's target date approaches
Disadvantages of Managed Portfolios
- Additional fees: 0.15% (Ramify) to 0.70% (Boursorama) in management fees on top of contract fees
- Limited customisation: standardised profiles (Yomoni offers 10 profiles, Nalo 101, but choices remain constrained)
- Sometimes lower performance: a simple MSCI World ETF beats the majority of managed portfolios over 5 years
Long-Term Performance (5 Years: 2020-2024)
The 5-year analysis smooths out market effects and reveals the true quality of management. This period includes the COVID crash (March 2020), the spectacular recovery (2020-2021), the 2022 bear market, and the 2023-2024 rally.
| Profile / Strategy | Cumulative 5-year return | Annualised return | Worst year |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSCI World (ETF, in life insurance) | +68% | +10.9% | -13.5% (2022) |
| Yomoni P10 (aggressive) | +52% | +8.7% | -18.5% (2022) |
| Ramify Flagship Aggressive* | +48% | +8.2% | -16.0% (2022) |
| Static 60/40 portfolio | +42% | +7.3% | -7.5% (2022) |
| Yomoni P6 (balanced) | +38% | +6.7% | -12.5% (2022) |
| Nalo Balanced | +32% | +5.7% | -13.1% (2022) |
| Boursorama Offensive | +38% | +6.7% | -15.5% (2022) |
| Goodvest Aggressive* | +22% | +4.1% | -22.0% (2022) |
| Conservative (market average) | +22% | +4.0% | -6.8% (2022) |
| Euro fund (average) | +12% | +2.3% | +1.3% (2020) |
Over 5 years, no conservative or balanced managed portfolio has beaten a simple 100% MSCI World portfolio. However, managed portfolios performed their role as volatility cushions perfectly: during the COVID crash in March 2020, conservative profiles lost only 5-8% compared to 33% for the MSCI World. In 2022, balanced profiles limited losses (-12% to -13%) compared to the MSCI World (-13.5%) thanks to the bond allocation.
Outlook for 2026
Rate Cuts and Their Impact on Allocations
The continued ECB rate cuts (policy rate brought down to 2.50% in March 2026, from 4.50% in September 2023) should lead to a rebalancing of allocations: less short-term bonds, more equities and listed real estate. Euro funds should maintain returns of 2.50% to 3.50% thanks to bonds acquired at high rates in 2022-2023 (stock effect).
Rise of Thematic Investing
An increasing number of managed portfolios are integrating thematic sleeves (artificial intelligence, energy transition, healthcare) alongside core allocations. Ramify launched an optional "Tech & AI" sleeve in 2024. Yomoni offers a "Responsible" profile incorporating ESG ETFs. This trend is expected to accelerate in 2026.
Impact Investing
SRI/ESG profiles are becoming widespread. At Goodvest (100% SRI), inflows grew by 40% in 2024. At Nalo, the eco-responsible profile accounted for 30% of new subscriptions. ESG profile performance is gradually converging with conventional profiles, although a gap remains in 2024 (-2 to -4 percentage points compared to conventional profiles).
How to Choose Your Managed Portfolio
Essential Criteria
- Total fees: add up contract fees + management fees + underlying fund fees. Aim for a total below 1.65% for an ETF-based service. Ramify (1.50%), Yomoni (1.60%), and Nalo (1.65%) are the most competitive.
- 3-5 year track record: a necessary but insufficient criterion. Yomoni and Ramify stand out over this horizon.
- Investment universe: ETF-based services (Yomoni, Nalo, Ramify, Goodvest) offer a better performance-to-fee ratio than active fund-based ones (Boursorama, bank mandates).
- Transparency: Yomoni and Nalo publish their allocation in real time in the client dashboard. Ramify reports monthly.
- Goal-based management: Nalo stands out with its goal-based approach that gradually de-risks the allocation as your project's target date approaches (property purchase, retirement).
- Diversification: Ramify differentiates itself by integrating real estate (SCPI) and private equity, offering greater diversification than purely financial competitors.
Our Managed Portfolio Rankings
| Criterion | Yomoni | Ramify | Nalo | Goodvest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance (balanced profile) | 9.7% (2024) | 9.2% (2024) | 8.0% (2024) | 7.0% (2024) |
| Total fees | 1.60% | 1.50% | 1.65% | 1.70% |
| Investment vehicles | ETFs | ETFs + SCPI + PE | ETFs | SRI ETFs only |
| Insurance provider | Suravenir | Apicil | Generali | Generali |
| Goal-based management | No | No | Yes | No |
| SRI investing | Optional SRI profile | No | Eco-responsible profile | 100% SRI |
| Minimum investment | €1,000 | €1,000 | €1,000 | €300 |
| Our verdict | Best gross performance | Best value for money | Best customisation | Best SRI choice |
For most savers, Yomoni or Ramify offer the best performance-to-fee ratio. Nalo stands out for its goal-based management, ideal if you have a specific target date. Goodvest is the conviction choice for investors wishing to align their savings with their values, though at the cost of lower returns.
Conclusion
2024 confirmed the competitiveness of ETF-based managed portfolios (Yomoni, Ramify, Nalo) versus traditional active fund-based services. The choice of risk profile remains the key determinant of performance: over 5 years, the gap between a conservative profile (+22%) and an aggressive one (+52%) reaches 30 percentage points.
For experienced and disciplined investors, a simple MSCI World ETF + euro fund portfolio in self-directed mode outperforms most managed portfolios. But for those seeking automation and peace of mind, ETF-based managed portfolios remain an excellent choice — provided you select a competitive provider (Yomoni, Ramify, or Nalo) and avoid bank-managed portfolios with their prohibitive fees.