AI Investing Apps Compared: A Scorecard

Every tool is scored on the same five criteria, each phrased as a yes/partial/no question that you can verify independently. We do not claim to have tested each app hands-on; the scores reflect documented, publicly stated features and how each provider describes its own product. The five criteria are:

• 1. Connects to your real brokerage? Can it link the broker account you already use, so it works with your actual portfolio rather than a hypothetical? Robo-advisers are marked differently here because they hold the assets themselves rather than connecting to an outside broker.
• 2. Sees your real holdings (grounded, not pasted)? Does it reason over your positions from a live account feed, or only from numbers you paste into a chat? Grounding is what separates a tool that knows your money from one that talks about it in the abstract.
• 3. Can place trades (with your approval)? Can it actually execute at your broker, and if so, does it require your explicit approval on each order?
• 4. Cost model. Free tier, flat subscription, or a percentage of assets under management. We use qualitative labels only and invent no specific prices.
• 5. Stays descriptive / not an adviser? Does it explain and frame trade-offs, or does it act as a registered investment adviser that directs and manages your money? Both models are legitimate; they are just different, and the row makes the difference visible.

A cell reads “Yes,” “Partial,” or “No,” sometimes with a short qualifier. The scorecard measures capabilities, not quality or returns, and different tools win on different rows.

Tools are the rows; the five criteria are the columns. Read across a row to see one tool’s capabilities, and read down a column to compare every tool on a single question.

No column is a ranking, and no tool sweeps every column. A robo-adviser scores “Yes” on placing trades precisely because it takes the wheel, which is the opposite of what someone who wants to stay in control is looking for. A general assistant scores “No” on connecting to your broker but is still the best tool for reasoning through a concept. The scorecard is a map of trade-offs, not a leaderboard.

This is the first fork in the road. General assistants (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity Finance) do not connect to a broker at all; they work from what you tell them. Aggregation-based tools like PortfolioPilot and connected chats like Walnut link the broker account you already use. Robo-advisers (Wealthfront, Betterment) and all-in-one platforms (SoFi) sit in a third bucket: they do not connect to an outside broker because they hold and manage the assets themselves. It matters because a tool that never sees your real account can only ever discuss your money in the abstract.

Connecting a broker is only useful if the tool reasons over what it finds. Grounding means the answers are anchored to a live feed of your positions rather than figures you paste into a chat, which a general model can restate incorrectly. Walnut sees your real holdings through SnapTrade (read-only by default) and frames each one against the S&P 500. Robo-advisers see the holdings inside the accounts they manage. General assistants see only what you hand them, so the same question can produce a confident but wrong number.

Execution is where the models diverge most. Robo-advisers place and rebalance trades automatically because managing the account is the whole product. General assistants cannot place trades at all. Walnut can place trades at your connected broker, but only after you approve each order, which keeps you in control while still letting the assistant do the setup work. When a tool can move your money, the important detail is not just “Yes” or “No,” it is who has to approve the action.

Cost falls into a few buckets, and we label the bucket rather than invent a number. Several tools have a free tier (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity Finance, and Walnut). Some charge a flat subscription (Magnifi). Robo- advisers typically charge a percentage of the assets they manage, for example roughly 0.25% at Wealthfront, which scales with your balance. A percentage-of-assets fee and a free tier are not directly comparable because you are buying different things: ongoing management versus a tool you drive yourself. Always confirm current pricing on the provider’s site.

The last column flags a legal and philosophical line. Robo-advisers like Wealthfront and Betterment are registered investment advisers: directing and managing your money is exactly what they are built and regulated to do. PortfolioPilot positions itself around advice, so read its disclosures on that. Walnut sits on the other side of the line: it is informational, is not an investment adviser, helps you research, and frames holdings against the S&P 500, but the decision and any trade are yours. Neither stance is wrong; you just want to know which one you are using.

A one-line description of each tool to go with its row, so the scores are not floating without context:

A scorecard is only useful if you read it the right way. A few reminders:

• It measures capabilities, not quality. A row full of “Yes” does not mean a tool is good, and it says nothing about performance or returns. It only tells you what the tool can do.
• Different tools win different rows. There is no overall number one here on purpose. Pick the row that matches what you want, then read down it. Walnut leads on the connected-broker rows, not across the board.
• “Partial” means it depends. Some tools connect to some accounts, or trade on some but not others. A partial score is a prompt to check your specific broker, not a knock.
• The adviser column is a fork, not a grade. A robo-adviser being a registered adviser is a feature if you want hands-off management and a mismatch if you want to stay in control. Read it as a choice.
• Verify before you act. Every cell reflects documented features that can change. Treat the scorecard as a starting map, then confirm the specifics on the provider’s own site.

To be scrupulous about what this page is and is not: it scores each tool on documented, publicly stated features, not on a hands-on lab test, and it is not a ranking of investment quality, performance, or returns. The five criteria were chosen because each is concrete and independently verifiable, but they are not the only things that matter, and reasonable people would weight them differently. Features, pricing, and adviser status change frequently, and a “Partial” often depends on your specific broker or plan, so any cell here can be out of date by the time you read it. We intend to refresh this scorecard periodically, and the update date at the top reflects the version you are reading. Wherever a cell affects a real decision, verify it on the provider’s own site before acting. Nothing here is a recommendation to use any product or to buy, sell, or hold any security.

For the broader landscape, see the best AI investing tools overview, the best AI investing apps roundup, and the best AI stock pickers comparison.