Dont think so

​

Great question—I see this come up often with clients in their 20s-30s who are just starting to build their investment portfolio.

The short answer: It's not wrong, but it's usually not optimal either.

I recently worked with a 27-year-old who was using three different roboadvisors because "diversification is good, right?" The issue wasn't the platforms themselves—it was that he had overlapping portfolios (all holding similar global ETFs), paying multiple management fees, and zero visibility on his actual overall asset allocation. When we mapped it out, his "diversified" approach was actually less diversified than one well-structured portfolio.

Two things I've seen trip people up:

1. Platform diversification ≠ investment diversification. If you're splitting money across roboadvisors with similar strategies, you're just fragmenting your portfolio while paying multiple fees. True diversification happens within your asset allocation, not across apps.
2. Complexity without purpose. Multiple platforms = multiple logins, tax reporting from different sources, rebalancing that doesn't account for your total picture. It makes annual reviews messier than they need to be.

What actually works in practice:

• Pick one roboadvisor aligned with your risk profile and goals
• Focus on consistency (monthly contributions beat platform-hopping)
• Once you hit meaningful size (~$50K+), then consider if you need specialized strategies that warrant additional platforms

The foundation years are about building good habits and keeping things simple enough that you'll actually stick with it. Sophistication comes from strategic allocation and discipline, not platform proliferation.

Curious—has anyone here found a genuine benefit to using multiple roboadvisors simultaneously? Or tried consolidating and found it simpler?

No

It's up to you and what you use them for. is it for different kind of products? or similar?