I come across this question often. Below is my response.
Analysts and industry observers often give the monikers 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 to an industry when the maturity of that industry improves in distinct phases. For the robo advice industry, it has been a continuous improvement of the tech-heavy service since the early 2010s. Most of the product innovation is being led by certain specific firms who have considerably higher execution skills or R&D budgets, while the rest of the firms are attempting the catch-up game.
So, terms such as robo advisor 1.0, robo advisor 2.0, and robo advisor 3.0 are only marketing terms with no substantial basis.
- Will there be oligopoly in the robo-advice industry?
- What is the future for wealth management?
- Is it too late for a new firm to enter the robo advice business?
- What’s going to happen to the robo-advisors the next time the market crashes?
- Regulatory changes that paved the way for robo advice in Australia
- Will robo advisors survive as independents or just as tools on bank websites?
QuietGrowth has been publishing content in this blog or in other sections of the website. Contributors for this content may include the employees of QuietGrowth, or third-party firms, or third-party authors. Unless otherwise noted, such content does not necessarily represent the actual views or opinions of QuietGrowth or any of its employees, directors, or officers.
Any links provided in our website to other websites are for the purpose of convenience, or as required by any such other websites. Unless otherwise noted, this does not imply that QuietGrowth endorses, is affiliated, and/or promotes any information, or products or services of those websites. Please read the advice disclaimer section of the website too.