Thank you very much for your insightful comment — it’s great to hear from someone who also uses Managed by Alpian.

You’re absolutely right about the fees. From my own portfolio, the Quarterly Management Fee entries confirm a 0.75% annual management fee, charged quarterly (around 0.1875% per quarter). For “Signature” clients, it’s indeed 0.69% per year. On top of that, there’s the TER of the ETFs used in the portfolio, usually between 0.10% and 0.30%, which brings the total cost close to 1%, as you mentioned.

Regarding the portfolio adjustments, what I’ve observed matches your description — small tactical reallocations, typically every couple of months. Alpian’s approach seems to favour strategic stability with limited active moves, which fits their digital private banking philosophy rather than short-term tactical trading.

Thanks again for sharing your experience — it’s always valuable to compare real-life feedback from other users!

Thanks for your comment — you’re absolutely right to highlight this nuance.

The distinction between interbank rate, Mastercard/Visa rates and applied markups is often misunderstood, and it can significantly impact the real cost.

In practice:

Neon (and many Swiss banks) use the Mastercard rate, which is close to the interbank rate but not identical, plus a markup depending on the plan

Wise applies a transparent markup on top of the interbank rate, without relying on card network rates

So yes, depending on the situation, Wise can indeed be cheaper — especially for international transfers or larger amounts.

Regarding the comparison between Neon and Alpian, the point is less about the raw percentage and more about how and when the fees apply.

Alpian tends to be more competitive on certain currency transfers (especially within the same currency zones), while Neon can be more advantageous in other cases, particularly for smaller amounts or specific corridors.

You’re also right that timing (weekday vs weekend FX) can make a difference.

👉 The conclusion is that there’s no single winner — it really depends on usage, amounts and type of transactions.

I’ll clarify this point further in the article to make the comparison more precise — thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks a lot for your comment and for confirming this from a client’s perspective — that’s incredibly helpful.

If the app today only shows ITD (Inception-To-Date) performance without specifying that it’s TWR, and there’s no other breakdown (like TWR vs. MWR), then it’s fair to say that the methodology is unclear. You’re absolutely right: this makes it hard — if not impossible — to compare Alpian’s performance with other platforms that explicitly report TWR.

I originally received confirmation from Alpian that TWR was used, but clearly the current user experience doesn’t reflect that. I really appreciate your feedback, and I’ll update the review to flag this more transparently for readers.

Thank you for your comment, I double checked with Alpian and this is what they say: This refers to TWR performance (time-weighted), which is the industry-standard practice (per the GIPS recommendations). It allows you to compare one platform’s performance to another’s by excluding the impact of cash flows.